/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210420.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 20, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 73

                            Headlines

4 SPIRIT GUIDES: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Munruddin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
ADVERTISING INC: Tompkins Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
AGA SERVICE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Arencibia Class Suit Granted
AMAZON.COM INC: Bond Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to N.D. Illinois

AMDOCS LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
APPLE INC: Promotes Illegal Gambling Games, Stephens Suit Says
APPLIED CONSULTANTS: Hennigar Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Texas
ATHENEX INC: Faces Koza Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
BARRETT IT'S ONLY PIZZA: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Increase of Crop Inputs' Prices
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Czerniak Alleges
BELLUS HEALTH: Portnoy Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BIMEDA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sherwood Alleges
BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber's Bid to Certify Salespersons Class Denied

BLUE NILE: N.D. California Tosses Johnson Suit With Leave to Amend
BOSTON PRIVATE: Sabatini Sues Over False Statement on Merger Deal
BP AMERICA: Fitzgerald Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties
CANAAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CANAAN INC: Johnson Fistel, LLP Files Securities Class Action Suit

CANAAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CANOO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Court Certifies Rodriguez Class Action
CHANCELLOR HEALTH: Faces Purwal Suit in California State Court
CHASE INC: Faces Keppler Employment Suit in California State Court

CHRISTAL TRANSPORT: Conditional Cert. of Truck Driver Class Sought
CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Employee Class Wins Conditional Status
CONAGRA BRANDS: Bid for Attorney Fees in Michael ERISA Suit Denied
DALLAS COUNTY: Sanchez Files Bid for Class Certification
DANIEL MULLINS: Esprit Sues Over Denied Employment Based on Race

DEMITROUS COOK: Snapchat Class Action Suit Settles for $90,000
DHL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Hidden Fees
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Strike Out Application in Class Action Dismissed
DR. ING: Turner Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Cal.
EAH INC: Labor Law Attorneys File Labor Class Action Lawsuit

EAST PENN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Hummel Suit Alleges
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: The Schall Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
ECHO GLOBAL: Lander Suit Seeks OT Pay for Sales Representatives
EDUCATIONAL OUTFITTERS: Miranda Sues Over FACTA Non-Compliance

ELANCO ANIMAL: Collars for Dogs & Cats Are Harmful, Suit Claims
ENBRIDGE US: Hamrick FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Attorneys' Fees Award in Reyes Suit Reversed
FABCO LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime to Laborers, Ross Claims
FAIRFIELD GOURMET: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Shields Suit Seeks Class Certification
FIBROGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Faces Xu Suit Over 43% Decline of Share Price
FIBROGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FLIR SYSTEMS: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Coffman Suit Alleges

FORMA SUPPLY: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
FULFILLMENT LAB: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Sihler Suit
FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticket Holders Win $7,220 Each in Class Settlement
GB PREMIUM: Brunet Seeks Thread Representatives' Unpaid Overtime
GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Green Suit Rulings to Del. Supreme Court

GENERAL MOTORS: Jackson Consumer Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Search Advertising Monopoly
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gambling Apps
GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Illegal Gambling Games, Montoya Alleges
H.C. WAINWRIGHT: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Prodanova Suit

HARRIS INSURANCE: Faces Lamping Suit in California State Court
HARRISON CONTRACTING: Granados Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
HAYDAY INC: Brito Sues Over Discrimination Against Disabled
HIGHLAND HOSPITAL: Denies Meal Periods & Rest Breaks, Suit Alleges
HOME DEPOT: Reynosa Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California

HOMELAND SECURITY: Protective Order Partly Granted in Al Oltro Suit
HUMANA INC: Moore Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
IDAHO: Tucker Must Prove Defense System Has Structural Deficiencies
INTRUSION INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters

JOHN O'DONNELL: Faces Bellisario Suit Over Deceptive GAP Insurance
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; KPA Suit Stayed
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Unlawful E-Cigarette Marketing
KADMON HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 2 Deadline

KAWASAKI KISEN: Alban Antitrust Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
KEMPER CORPORATION: Faces Aguallo Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
KROGER CO: Faces Abrams Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Brury Suit Over Drop in Share Price
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LOUISIANA PHS: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Spillers Alleges
LPS SERVICES: Court Proposes Class Definition in Alleman FLSA Suit
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Faces Walker Suit Over Marketing of OxyContin
MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Murdock Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

MECHANICAL SERVICE: Perez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT
MEDFORD, MA: Fails to Pay OT to School Custodians, Howard Says
MEMPHIS, TN: Victims Seek Lawsuit for Mishandling of Rape Kits
MILL-RUN TOURS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macuku Alleges
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Class Suit Granted
NATIONAL CREDIT: Himmel FDCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Morandi
NEIMAN MARCUS: Vicario Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Florida
NEW ERA: Judge Sues Interstate Movers Holding His Goods Hostage

NEW YORK: Annucci & Fischer Dismissed as Defendants in Adams Suit
NIANGUA R-V: Apple FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
NOOM INC: Wins Bids to Toss Graham Suit Over Eavesdropping Claims
NURTURE INC: Baby Food Products Contain Heavy Metals, Wood Claims
NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Class Settlement in Cobra Suit Gets Final Nod

OKLOHAMA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Marijuana Tracking Program
OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Jose Sues Over Retaliation & Unpaid Wages/Tips
OVERCASH PIPELINE: Sued Over Non Payment of Arbitration Award
PARTNER COMMS: Facing Unlawful ISP Service Charge Related Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Facing Unlawful ISP Service Fee Related Suit

PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Location Data-Related Suit Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: November 2016 Claim for NIS 157.5 Million Underway
PATRICK HIRSCH: Faces Hetland Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
PRECIGEN INC: Raju Shah Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Abadilla Suit

PRESIDIO INC: Employee Files Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
PRINCE TELECOM: Faces Roman Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
PSCU INC: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
RAQNOR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Safranek Suit Alleges
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Corn Says Collection Letters "Deceptive"

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniluk Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Trade Orders
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Quat Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kelley Antitrust Suit Moved to S.D. Florida

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Saliba Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
RPS HOLDINGS: De Sa Sues Over Tip Pooling & Failure to Pay Wages
SAN FRANCISCO HILTON: Class Cert. of Banquet Service Staff Sought
SHAULI ENTERPRISES: Faces Reyes Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
SIGNATURE SYSTEMS: Smith BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces Horowitz Suit in California State Court
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Must Supplement Counterclaims in D'Ottavio Suit
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Smith Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Medley BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SOS LIMITED: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline

SPUR ENERGY: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D.N.M.
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Pet Parade Class Action
STRATHMORE INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Select Hospitality Suit
SUNCORP GROUP: Subsidiary Hit With Insurance Class Action Lawsuit
SUTTER VALLEY: Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Tinnin Wage Suit

SWISSTEX CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Wages, Mejia Suit Claims
TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Bid for Class Cert. Nixed without Prejudice
THEVEGASPACKAGE.COM INC: Court Certifies Class in Fisher TCPA Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Bluetooth Echo
UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Salo Class Suit

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Denies Tuition Fee Refund, Rivadeneira Says
UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL: Faces Monasterios FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT: Faces Suit Due to 'Failures in System'
VOLUSIA COUNTY PUBLIC: Joins Class Action Vaping Lawsuit
VOTER APPROVED: Ilboudo Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code

VROOM INC: Faces Zawatsky Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
WEBMD LLC: Marshall Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to M.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO BANK: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Ajasa Suit Denied
WELLS FARGO: Arbitration in Checking Account Overdraft Suit Upheld
WESTERN EXPRESS: Farrell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso FSCA Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
WORLD WRESTLING: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Settlement

                            *********

4 SPIRIT GUIDES: Brown Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE 4 SPIRIT GUIDES, CORP. d/b/a Swig
Tavern, SHAWNA SODERMAN, and STEVE SODERMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01001 (D. Colo., April 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay weekly
overtime premiums, failure to pay wages when due, failure to pay
all earned wages, improper deductions, denial of mandatory rest
periods, and wage demand penalties.

The Plaintiff started to work for the Defendants as a part time
bartender until her promotion to the position of a bar manager on
approximately May 20, 2019. She remained in that role until October
4, 2019.

The 4 Spirit Guides, Corp. is a bar owner and operator under the
name Swig Tavern, with its principal place of business located at
11810 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
         ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
         14143 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 100-50
         Golden, CO 80401
         Telephone: (212) 961-7639
         E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Munruddin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANSOOR MUNRUDDIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. FCS056090, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00672-MCE-DB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages
for all hours worked, failure to provide off-duty meal breaks,
failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, failure
to pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                 
         
         Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
         Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
         Ann H. Qushair, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
         Telephone: (213) 532-2000
         Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
         E-mail: mbeilke@HuntonAK.com
                 jtrankiem@HuntonAK.com
                 aqushair@HuntonAK.com

ADVERTISING INC: Tompkins Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY J. TOMPKINS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVERTISING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00188-KD-M (S.D. Ala., April 13, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system to
market its services without prior express consent. The Plaintiff
has allegedly suffered actual damages and injury-in-fact, including
but not limited to loss of time in answering the calls and tracing
their origin, the loss of use of his phone for legitimate purposes
and his productivity, and invasion of his privacy and statutory
rights.

Advertising, Inc. is a marketing company, with its principal place
of business in Nevada. [BN]

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

                - and –

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

AGA SERVICE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Arencibia Class Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IBALDO ARENCIBIA, Plaintiff v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-24694-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted Defendants AGA Services and Jefferson
Insurance Co.'s Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint.

On Oct. 17, 2019, Plaintiff Arencibia initiated the class action
lawsuit against the Defendants and American Airlines, arising from
his online purchase of a travel insurance policy.  According to the
Amended Complaint, on Aug. 17, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a
roundtrip airline ticket on American Airlines' website to travel
from Miami, Florida to Bogota, Columbia.  During the online booking
process, the Plaintiff was presented with an option to purchase
travel insurance from AGA Services ("Allianz").  The Plaintiff
looked at it, and because it seemed like a good option to protect
his trip, he decided to buy it."

The Plaintiff was offered a job opportunity to go on a seven-day
multi-state tour as a technician on days overlapping his planned
Bogota trip.  On Sept. 1, 2019, the Plaintiff, thinking he was
insured, contacted Allianz, and was informed by an Allianz agent
that his work conflict was not covered under the Policy.  The
following day, the Plaintiff cancelled his flight to Bogota and
completed the online claim submission.  On Sept. 9, 2019, the
Plaintiff received a letter from Allianz, informing him that it
would be "unable to provide benefits under the coverage he
purchased because the Policy is a named perils travel insurance
program, which means it covers only the specific situations, events
and losses included in the Policy, and only under the conditions
Allianz described.

The Plaintiff alleges that the denial letter was in "stark
contrast" with the representations made by Allianz before his
purchase.  Specifically, he alleges that the Allianz travel
insurance offer led him to believe that he was purchasing "broad,
no fault insurance protection and coverage" based upon, among other
things: (1) the broad offer language stating "Yes, protect my trip"
and representation that the Policy "includes trip cancellation,
trip interruption, and more;" (2) the disclosure that "by declining
coverage he is responsible for all cancellation fees and expenses;"
(3) the requirement to accept or decline travel insurance before
purchasing a flight; and (4) the non-disclosure in the offer that
the Policy covered only named perils.  Based on these
representations, a reasonable consumer "would get the net
impression that Allianz' insurance provides broad, no-fault
insurance protection and coverage, and that should one choose to
purchase this insurance, one would not be 'responsible for all
cancellation fees and expenses.'"

The Plaintiff alleges that Jefferson is complicit in Allianz's
scheme to mislead consumers into purchasing this "empty 'insurance'
coverage."  Specifically, he maintains as the underwriter of the
Policy, Jefferson is well aware of its contents and knows that, in
essence and substance, the Policy is narrowly limited to medical
emergencies or catastrophic events, in contradiction to the offer
of insurance its partners, Allianz and American Airlines, make to
consumers at the time of purchase."  The Plaintiff also alleges
that American Airlines is complicit in the scheme by permitting
Allianz to use "its massive online platform" so it can "make
convenient, strategically located offer (on the flight payment
screen) that misleads consumers."  He further contends that both
Jefferson and American Airlines received kickbacks from Allianz.

The Amended Complaint asserts six claims for relief on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class, Florida subclass, and Texas subclass:
(I) Declaratory Action against the Defendants and American
Airlines; (II) Unjust Enrichment against American Airlines; (III)
Unjust Enrichment against the Defendants; (IV) Violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat.
Section 501.201, et seq., against the Defendants; (V) Violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961, et seq., against the Defendants and American
Airlines; and (VI) Deceptive Trade Practices against American
Airlines.

On Oct. 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant action against
Defendants and American Airlines in the Southern District of
Florida, which was originally assigned to Judge Marcia G. Cooke.
On Dec. 13, 2019, the Defendants and American Airlines separately
moved to dismiss the Complaint.  Thereafter, on Dec. 27, 2019,
American Airlines moved to sever and transfer all claims against it
to the Northern District of Texas based upon a forum selection
clause to which Plaintiff agreed when he joined American Airlines'
Advantage loyalty program.  On Aug. 5, 2020, Judge Cooke
transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas, where the
case was assigned to Judge Reed O'Connor.  Judge Cooke did not rule
on the then-pending motions to dismiss.

On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the operative Amended
Complaint.  On Oct. 23, 2020, the Defendants and American Airlines
filed their respective motions to dismiss in the Northern District
of Texas, to which the parties filed supporting and opposing
submissions.  On Nov. 13, 2020, Judge O'Connor granted American
Airlines' motion to dismiss with prejudice, dismissed American
Airlines from the action, and transferred the remaining claims
against Defendants back to the District.  On Nov. 16, 2020, the
case was assigned to the Court.

On Dec. 14, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant Motion, seeking
to dismiss all remaining claims in the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.  They seek to dismiss Counts I, III, IV, and V of the
Amended Complaint with prejudice.  The Plaintiff filed a response,
the Defendants filed a reply, and the Plaintiff filed further
briefing with leave of Court.  Thereafter, on March 3, 2021, the
Court heard oral argument on the Motion.

A. Count III -- Unjust Enrichment

In Count III of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a
claim against Defendants for unjust enrichment, arising from the
"payments they received from thousands or millions of consumers"
who purchased the purported "wrongfully disclosed" travel insurance
Policy.  The Defendants move to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claim, asserting that the claim is barred by: (1) the Florida
Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Section 626.951,
et seq. ("FUITPA"); and (2) the existence of a contract.

Judge Bloom holds that the Plaintiff may not assert an unjust
enrichment claim based on the same purported misconduct that would
constitute a violation of Fla. Stat. Section 626.9541(1)(a), (b).
The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is also barred by the
existence of an express contract governing the parties'
relationship.  For these reasons, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim warrants dismissal.

B. Count IV -- Violation of the FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. Section 501.201,
et seq.

In Count IV of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a claim
against the Defendants for violation of FDUTPA, asserting that the
Defendants' "actions were unfair and deceptive as they
misrepresented the real contents of their travel insurance policy."
A claim for damages under FDUTPA has three elements: (1) a
deceptive act or unfair practice in the course of trade or
commerce; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.

Judge Bloom agrees that the Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim fails as a
matter of law.  First, based on the Plaintiff's allegations in the
Amended Complaint, the Defendants are entities involved in the
business of insurance, and are therefore regulated exclusively by
the State of Florida.  Moreover, the purported "unfair and
deceptive" offer and sale of insurance that the Plaintiff complains
of is precisely the type of activity that is regulated under
Florida's Insurance Code.  Even assuming arguendo that the
Plaintiff could bring a claim against the Defendants under FDUTPA,
the conduct alleged here does not rise to the level of an "unfair
or deceptive practice."  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,
the Plaintiff's FDUTPA claim is dismissed.

C. Count V -- Violation of the RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et
seq.

In Count V of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
nationwide class, alleges a RICO claim against "all the Defendants"
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c).  To state a claim under
Section 1964(c), a plaintiff must allege "three essential
elements:" (1) "defendant committed a pattern of RICO predicate
acts under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c);" (2) "plaintiff suffered
injury to business or property;" and (3) "defendant's racketeering
activity proximately caused the injury."  Section 1962(c) makes it
"unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any
enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through
a pattern of racketeering activity."

First, Judge Bloom agrees that the RICO claim fails to sufficiently
plead that Defendants engaged in a "pattern of racketeering
activity."  She is not persuaded that the basic disclaimer clearly
does not put anyone on notice of what the terms of the insurance
policy are.  Accordingly, because the Plaintiff fails to plead any
actionable misrepresentation by the Defendants, the RICO claim
warrants dismissal on this basis alone.  And, based on the
allegations in the Amended Complaint, along with the plain language
of the Policy, the Plaintiff "received the coverage and services
for which he contracted, and thus cannot plausibly claim that he
did not receive the benefit of his bargain, meaning that he
suffered no injury.

Second, since the Plaintiff's substantive claims have all been
dismissed, their claim for declaratory relief must also be
dismissed.  The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff's
common law and statutory claims are due to be dismissed, Count I of
the Amended Complaint for declaratory relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, must also be dismissed.
Declaratory relief is a procedural device which depends on an
underlying substantive cause of action and cannot stand on its
own.

D. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiff, in the alternative, seeks leave to amend the Amended
Complaint.  He had the opportunity to amend his original Complaint
after previewing the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants and
American Airlines.  Despite his attempts to cure the pleading
deficiencies, the Amended Complaint still fails to state a
plausible claim for relief.  Even if the Court were inclined to
give Plaintiff a third attempt, the amendment would be futile as
Plaintiff's own allegations, taken as true, negate the Defendants'
purported misrepresentation of the travel insurance offer and the
terms of the Policy.  Accordingly, Counts I, III, IV, and V of the
Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted the Motion and dismissed with
prejudice the Amended Complaint.  To the extent not otherwise
disposed of, all pending motions are denied as moot and all
deadlines are terminated.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4fc6bk9v from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Bond Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Bond v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
Case No. 21-CH-000026, was removed from the Circuit Court of Kane
County to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) on March 22, 2021.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-01578 to the proceeding.

The suit arises from alleged contract violation demanding $75,000
in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow,
Jr.

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

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

         Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
         111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 984-0000
         E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

Defendant Amazon.Com is represented by:

         Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq.
         Raechel K. Kummer, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 324-1000
         E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
                 rachel.kummer@morganlewis.com

AMDOCS LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased Amdocs
Limited ("Amdocs") (NASDAQ: DOX) between December 13, 2016 and
March 30, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/amdocs-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=14749&wire=5

Allegations against DOX include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and liquidity, while
understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs concealed its large borrowing;
(iii) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its North American
business was stable, that business was actually deteriorating
annually, in part because the Company was losing AT&T as a
customer; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Amdocs you have until June 8, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

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

APPLE INC: Promotes Illegal Gambling Games, Stephens Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUE STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-02633-EJD (N.D. Miss., April 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation pursuant to Section 87-1-5 of
the Code of Mississippi.

The case arises from the Defendant's participation in illegal
gambling. According to the complaint, Apple profits from illegal
gambling by promoting illegal gambling games through its
participation in the sale of in-app purchases through the App
Store. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to recover money paid
and lost due to gambling.

Apple, Inc. is an American technology company, with its principal
place of business in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
         WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
         1438 N. State Street
         Jackson, MS 39202
         Telephone: (601) 624-7460
         Facsimile: (866) 900-4850
         E-mail: Chris@WeldyLawFirm.com

APPLIED CONSULTANTS: Hennigar Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS HENNIGAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLIED CONSULTANTS, INC., Case No.
3:21-mc-00004, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-mc-00889 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce to the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, for determination in connection with the
underlying class action captioned as THOMAS HENNIGAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGA RESOURCES
CORP., Case No. 4:20-cv-01209. The case alleges violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Applied Consultants, Inc. is an engineering consultant in Longview,
Texas.

Targa Resources Corp. is an energy infrastructure corporation based
in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         William R. Liles, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 wliles@mybackwages.com

                 - and –

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

ATHENEX INC: Faces Koza Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
PETER KOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATHENEX, INC., RUDOLF KWAN, JOHNSON Y.N. LAU, and
TIMOTHY COOK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00413 (W.D.N.Y., March 22, 2021) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Athenex, Inc. common
stock between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Athenex was founded in 2003, and according to its recent public
statements, is a "global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of
cancer." Athenex is "organized around three platforms, including an
Oncology Innovation Platform, a Commercial Platform, and a Global
Supply Chain Platform." One of the Company's main drug candidates
is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of
metastatic breast cancer.

Athenex shares trade on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Athenex is
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.

On August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral
paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with
statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase
3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. In this release, the
Company stated that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application
("NDA") meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
and would "be preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible."
Over the next several months, Defendants continued to laud their
Phase 3 study of oral paclitaxel plus encequidar.

On September 1, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA had
accepted for filing Athenex's NDA for Oral Paclitaxel and
Encequidar in metastatic breast cancer with priority review. In
this release, Athenex announced that the FDA had set a target
action date of February 28, 2021 for the Company's NDA, and that
"the FDA has communicated that it is not currently planning to hold
an advisory committee meeting to discuss the application."

On this March 1, 2021 press release, Athenex further stated that
the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty over the
results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at
week 19 conducted by blinded independent centra review (BICR). The
[FDA] stated that the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may
have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR."

On this news, the price of Athenex's shares plummeted from their
February 26, 2021 closing price of $12.10 per share to a March 1,
2021 close of just $5.46 each. This represents a one-day drop of
approximately 55%, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost market capitalization, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Athenex at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and has been
damaged by the revelation of the Company's material
misrepresentations and material omissions.

Athenex is a global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of
cancer. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

BARRETT IT'S ONLY PIZZA: Thomas Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Thomas, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Barrett It's Only
Pizza, Inc., It's Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It's Only Papa's
Pizza, LLC; It's Only Downtown Pizza II, Inc., Michael Hutmier, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00411-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action, and designating
      Thomas as the representative of the following class:

      "All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked at
      any of the Papa John's Pizza locations owned/operated by It's

      Only Pizza, Inc., It's Only Downtown Pizza, Inc., It's Only
      Downtown Pizza II Inc., It's Only Papa's Pizza LLC, Michael
      Hutmier, and/or James "Chip" Phelps in Ohio at any time from

      June 16, 2014 to present;"

   2. appointing Biller & Kimble, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to

      Rule 23(g); and

   3. permitting him to send notice of this lawsuit to putative
      class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).

The Plaintiff Thomas worked for the Defendants at one of their
Cincinnati-area Papa John's Pizza locations. Plaintiff alleges that
each of Defendants' Papa John's stores adheres to a compensation
policy that results in illegal underpayment to their delivery
drivers. First, the Defendants pay each of their delivery drivers
minimum wage or tipped minimum wage. Second, the Defendants require
their delivery drivers to provide cars to use to deliver their
pizzas. Third, the Defendants do not adequately reimburse the
delivery drivers for using those vehicles, resulting in Defendants
underpaying the drivers. Additionally, Defendants unlawfully deduct
the cost of uniforms from delivery drivers' wages.

Because the Defendants applied these policies to all delivery
drivers at all their Papa John's Pizza locations in Ohio, the
Plaintiff's Ohio minimum wage (Count 2), Ohio Prompt Pay Act
(Count
3), and O.R.C. section 2307. 60 (Count 4) claims are well-suited
for class certification and meet Rule 23's requirements.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dqkejl
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Erica F. Blankenship, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  Andrew P. Kimble
                  Philip J. Krzeski
                  Nathan B. Spencer

               - and -


          Biller & Kimble, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
          pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
          nspencer@billerkimble.com
          eblankenship@billerkimble.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Increase of Crop Inputs' Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
WUNSCH FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION,
SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC., FEDERATED COOPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.,
and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00970 (D. Minn.,
April 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust
statutes, state consumer protection statutes, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from an unlawful agreement between Defendants,
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop
protection chemicals to artificially increase and fix the prices of
these chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides
used by farmers. The cost of seeds and crop protection chemicals is
increasing at a significantly faster rate than profits from
farmers' crop yields. The skyrocketing prices are causing farmers
to take on operating debt and often forcing them into bankruptcy,
creating a crisis situation in the agriculture community for
American farmers who are critical to the nation's food supply.
Neither the cost increases nor the price disparities are
attributable to any independent legitimate cause, such as weather
or other factors, says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants have maintained
supracompetitive prices for crop chemicals by denying farmers
access to accurate pricing information and have injured farmers by
forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that drastically
outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices.

Bayer Cropscience LP is a crop science company based in Saint
Louis, Missouri.

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

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

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

BASF Corporation is a chemical company in Florham Park, New
Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a company that provides crop protection
products based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of seed
and crop protection products, headquartered in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.

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

Federated Cooperatives Ltd. is a co-operative federation providing
procurement and distribution to member co-operatives in Western
Canada.

CHS Inc. is a Fortune 100 business owned by United States
agricultural cooperatives, farmers, ranchers, and thousands of
preferred stock holders, headquartered in Inver Grove Heights,
Minnesota.

Nutrien AG Solutions Inc. is an agriculture inputs company based in
Colby, Kansas.

Growmark Inc. is a regional agricultural supply cooperative based
in Illinois.

Growmark FS, LLC is a fertilizer supplier located in Milford,
Delaware.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a farm supplies company based in
Rayville, Louisiana.

Tenkoz, Inc. is a distributor of crop protection products based in
Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Brett Cebulash, Esq.
         Kevin Landau, Esq.
         Evan Rosin, Esq.
         TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
         80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 931-0704
         E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                 klandau@tcllaw.com
                 erosin@tcllaw.com

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seresto Collars Harmful to Pets, Czerniak Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CZERNIAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, and ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80689-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
April 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, about the safety risks posed by
the Seresto brand flea and tick collars to dogs and cats. The
Seresto products purport to prevent fleas and ticks on dogs and
cats by releasing small amounts of pesticides onto the pets over
time. However, the harm inflicted by Seresto Collars far outweighs
any benefits of flea or tick prevention that the products might
offer. As a result of the Defendants' active concealment of the
hazards associated with use of the Seresto Collars, the Plaintiff
and Class members did not receive the benefit of their bargain and
suffered damages, the suit says.

Bayer Healthcare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products based in Whippany, New Jersey.

Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Rachel Soffin, Esq.
         Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
         William A. Ladnier, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 will@gregcolemanlaw.com

                 - and –

         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormack Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

BELLUS HEALTH: Portnoy Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU)
investors that acquired shares between September 5, 2019 and July
5, 2020. Investors have until May 17, 2021 to seek an active role
in this litigation.

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

Before the market opened on July 6, 2020, BELLUS announced topline
results from its Phase 2 RELIEF trial of BLU-5937 in patients with
refractory chronic cough. According to Bellus, the trial "did not
achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint of
reduction in placebo-adjusted cough frequency at any dose tested."

Bellus' stock price fell $9.05, or 75%, on this news, over two
consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.

It is alleged in this complaint that Bellus made materially
misleading and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Bellus' business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Bellus knew,
and failed to disclose, that while BLU-5937's "high selectivity"
contributed to the drug causing little to no taste alteration in
chronic cough patients, 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17,
2021.

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

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

BIMEDA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sherwood Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SHERWOOD, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated as an aggrieved employee v. BIMEDA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, RIPSIME MATEVOSYAN an individual, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV11090 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 22, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay minimum and overtime wages, failed to furnish wage and hour
statements and failed to provide meal and rest period compensation
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that he began working for the Defendants on
September 25, 2017 as a quality assurance technician at a rate of
pay of $17.50 per hour. Due to his track record of above average
performance, his rate of pay increased to $18.49 per hour during
his tenure with the Defendants. During his employment and during
the PAGA period, he and Aggrieved Employees regularly worked over
eight hours during each work day, and in his case regularly six
days per week. As a result, he and Aggrieved Employees worked over
40 hours per week, yet the Defendants routinely failed to pay at
least minimum wage for all hours worked and/or at an overtime rate
of compensation, the suit says.

Bimeda develops and manufactures a wide range of veterinary
pharmaceuticals and animal health products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
          LisaNoveck, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
          65 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 260
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (310) 853-3461
          Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
          E-mail: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
                  lisan@pierrelacour.com

BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber's Bid to Certify Salespersons Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit captioned AARON HUBER, et al. v. BIOSCRIP INFUSION
SERVICES, et al., Case No. 20-2197 (E.D. La.).

In the litigation, Plaintiffs Aaron Huber and Justin Theriot's
allege that BioScrip and Option Health Care, Inc. are liable to the
Plaintiffs for unpaid sales commissions.

On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a petition in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana,
against Defendants. In the Petition, they allege that they were
commissioned salespersons for the Defendants during the third
quarter of 2019. They further allege that the Defendants
represented that they would pay the Plaintiffs quarterly
commissions calculated based on "hitting specific sales goals as
outlined in the 2019 Sale Compensation Plan." According to the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants failed to remit their commissions that
were earned as agreed in the third quarter of 2019 in the amounts
outlined in the Sales Compensation Plan which covered that
quarter.

The Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, failure to pay
employees after discharge, unlawful non-payment of commissions,
unjust enrichment, unfair trade practices, and detrimental reliance
against the Defendants under Louisiana law. Additionally, in the
Petition, the Plaintiffs state that they seek to have this matter
proceed as a Class Action of all those similarly situated who did
not receive commissions in the amount due under the commission
structure they reasonably relied upon when they completed their
sales.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs request a declaration
"that the Defendants are liable for all unpaid commissions, unpaid
wages, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment arising from
the allegations outlined herein." They also pray that "upon
certification of the class action, the Court call for the
formulation of a suitable management plan pursuant to Louisiana
law." In addition, the Plaintiffs request that the rights of the
members of the class to establish their entitlement to compensatory
damages, and the amount thereof, be reserved for determination in
their individual actions when appropriate.

The Defendants removed the instant action to the Court on August 5,
2020, asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332.

On November 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
class certification. The Defendants filed an opposition to the
motion for class certification on November 24, 2020.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of "Commissioned
salespersons employed by BioScrip Infusion Services, LLC and/or
Option Care Health, Inc. during the third quarter of 2019 who did
not receive all due commission, wherever located." The proposed
class representatives are Huber and Theriot. The Plaintiffs allege
that Huber and Theriot are owed commissions from their work as
salespersons for the Defendants during the third quarter of 2019
and are "personally familiar" with the Defendants' alleged failure
to remit commissions to other salespersons during that period.

The Plaintiffs argue that class certification is proper in the case
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They
aver that the Rule 23(a) requirements--numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation--are met. They also
assert that the class certification requirements under Rule 23(b)
are satisfied.

In opposition, the Defendants initially point out the Plaintiffs
have brought six separate claims under Louisiana law against the
Defendants. The Defendants note that if this case is certified, "it
would implicate the laws of numerous other states in the United
States."

The Defendants then offer three principal arguments in opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: (1) The Defendants
argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is deficient; (2) The
Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
Rule 23(a) requirements for class certification; and (3) The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
Rule 23(b) requirements for class certification.

District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown finds that the Plaintiffs
have not established that all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites for
class certification are met. She opines that the Plaintiffs offer
nothing more than a perfunctory nod to the numerosity requirement.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the "not demanding"
standard for commonality, and that they satisfy the low standard
for typicality by alleging generally that the claims brought by
Huber and Theriot arise from the same factual circumstances and
advance the same theories of relief as the proposed class members.
Judge Brown, however, finds that the Plaintiffs fail to show how
Huber and Theriot are adequate representatives of the proposed
class.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden
of showing that the Rule 23(b)(1)(A) requirements are satisfied in
this case. Judge Brown holds that dissimilar outcomes resulting
from differing state laws are likely to result and certification is
inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A).

The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs fail to show that the
predominance and superiority factors of Rule 23(b) are satisfied.

Considering these reasons, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated April 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/375kbw2a from
Leagle.com.


BLUE NILE: N.D. California Tosses Johnson Suit With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SUSAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE NILE, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08183-LB (N.D. Cal.), the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.

Blue Nile sells jewelry online through its website. It uses
FullStory's software (called "session replay") to record what
visitors are doing on the Blue Nile website, such as their
keystrokes, mouse clicks, and page scrolling, thereby allowing a
full picture of the user's website interactions.

FullStory is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. It provides software to its clients (including Blue Nile)
to capture and analyze data so that the clients can see how
visitors to their websites are using the sites. The clients put
FullStory's code on their websites to capture the data, and then
they can review the data, which is stored in the cloud on
FullStory's servers. The software records visitor data, such as
keystrokes, mouse clicks, and page scrolling. Through a function
called Session Replay, FullStory's clients can see a "playback" of
any visitor's session. If the visitor is still on the site, the
clients can see the session live.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California, and Blue Nile is a
Delaware company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Between
January and May 2020, the Plaintiff visited Blue Nile's website on
a monthly basis to browse its jewelry selection but did not buy
anything. FullStory's Session Replay function "created a video
capturing each of Plaintiff's keystrokes and mouse clicks on the
website . . . [and] also captured the date and time of the visit,
the duration of the visit, Plaintiff's IP address, her location at
the time of the visit, her browser type, and the operating system
on her device."

The captured personally identifiable information (PII) includes--in
addition to the information in the last paragraph--the user's
payment card information such as card number, expiration code, and
CVV security code.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint has three claims: (1)
wiretapping, in violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a); (2)
the sale of eavesdropping software, in violation of Cal. Penal Code
Section 635(a); and (3) invasion of privacy under California's
Constitution. The Plaintiff withdrew claim three.

The putative class is "all California residents who visited Blue
Nile's Website, and whose electronic communications were
intercepted or recorded by FullStory." The case is related to
Graham v. Noom, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-06903-LB (N.D. Cal.) and raises
the same issues.

The Plaintiff--on behalf of a putative California class--claims
that FullStory is illegally wiretapping her communications with
Blue Nile (and Blue Nile is aiding and abetting that eavesdropping)
in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, in part on the ground
that FullStory--as Blue Nile's vendor for analyzing its website
traffic--was a party to the communication (and not an
eavesdropper). They also contend that the court lacks personal
jurisdiction because there is no forum-related conduct.

The Court held a hearing on April 8, 2021.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler finds that the Plaintiff does not
plausibly plead that FullStory eavesdropped on her communications
with Blue Nile and pleads only that FullStory is Blue Nile's vendor
for software services. She, thus, does not meet her prima facie
burden to establish specific jurisdiction over the Defendants, and
she does not plausibly plead wiretapping in violation of California
law.

Judge Beeler holds that the reasoning in Graham v. Noom controls in
the case: (1) for the section 631(a) claim, the plaintiff does not
plausibly plead FullStory's wiretapping, and Blue Nile, thus, is
not liable as an aider and abettor; (2) there is no section 635(a)
claim because there is no wiretapping; and (3) there is no personal
jurisdiction over FullStory or Blue Nile.

Judge Beeler explains that, first, for the reasons stated in Graham
v. Noom, FullStory is not a third-party eavesdropper. As a result,
Blue Nile is not liable for aiding and abetting FullStory's
wrongdoing because there is no wrongdoing. Second, the Plaintiff
predicates her claim in part on information--such as IP addresses,
locations, browser types, and operating systems--that is not
content. The Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute that this
information is not content but contends that other website
interactions are content. For the reasons in Noom, the court
dismisses the claim to the extent that it is predicated on
non-content information. In any amended complaint, the Plaintiff
can delineate content from non-content records.

Third, the Defendants contend that Blue Nile's privacy policy
discloses the possibility of data collection and analysis. The
Plaintiff counters--as her counsel did in Noom--that she could not
consent to wiretapping that happened when she accessed the website
and before she could read the policy, notice was insufficient, and
the policy in any event did not disclose wiretapping.

Judge Beeler notes that the privacy policy discloses that Blue Nile
may collect user data, such as (1) information gathered through
cookies and other tracking technology, (2) device and browser
information, (3) information gathered through web server logs, and
(4) general location information. It says that Blue Nile may share
the data with "site optimization service providers" and "marketing
service providers." Blue Nile uses the collected data to, among
other things, "optimize the performance of the site," "understand
customer demographics, preferences, interest, and behavior," and
"improve marketing and promotional efforts, and overall customer
experience."

For the reasons stated in Noom, the Plaintiff does not have a
private right of action and lacks Article III standing for the
section 635(a) claim. As in Noom, given the lack of a private right
of action or Article III standing, the court does not address the
defendants' other arguments about viability of the section 635(a)
claim.

For the reasons stated in Noom, there is no specific personal
jurisdiction over FullStory, Judge Beeler finds. The allegations in
the complaint establish only that FullStory is Blue Nile's vendor,
and a vendor's selling a software-services product to Blue
Nile--even if Blue Nile had substantial business here and the
vendor knew it--does not establish specific personal jurisdiction
over the vendor. The Plaintiff does not contest this point.

The Plaintiff alleges that (1) "Defendants knew that a significant
number of Californians would visit Blue Nile's website, because
they form a significant portion of Blue Nile's customer base," and
(2) "[b]y intercepting the transmissions of Blue Nile website
users, Defendants targeted their wrongful conduct at customers,
some of whom Defendants knew, at least constructively, were
residents of California." Her basis for jurisdiction is the
wiretapping of these customers. Because she did not plausibly plead
FullStory's wiretapping, she did not plead specific personal
jurisdiction over FullStory, Judge Beeler holds.

The analysis regarding Blue Nile is slightly different, Judge
Beeler notes. Unlike FullStory, who is merely a vendor, Blue Nile
sells goods to California customers. If it were committing a tort
like wiretapping, its acts might be purposefully directed toward
California customers and establish specific personal jurisdiction
over it, the Judge opines, citing S.D. v. Hytto Ltd., No.
18-cv-00688-JSW, 2019 WL 8333519, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2019);
cf. ThermoLife Int'l, LLC v. NetNutri.com LLC, 813 F. App'x 316,
318 (9th Cir. 2020).

Wiretapping is the only ground that the Plaintiff asserts to
support specific personal jurisdiction over Blue Nile. Because Blue
Nile did not aid or abet any wiretapping, there is no tort
establishing jurisdiction here, Judge Beeler points out.

Hence, the Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend within
21 days (except that it dismisses the Plaintiff's withdrawn claim
three with prejudice). Any amended complaint must attach a
blackline comparison between the current complaint and the amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5vefk4ex from Leagle.com.


BOSTON PRIVATE: Sabatini Sues Over False Statement on Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, 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-02619 (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Boston Private filed a false and
misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the proposed merger agreement between Boston
Private and SVB Financial Group. The proxy statement, which
solicits Boston Private stockholders to approve the proposed
transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (a) 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 Boston Private's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley; and
(b) the background of the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff and
Class members seek the disclosure of material information to Boston
Private's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so
that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.

Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. is a financial holding
company, with its principal executive offices located at Ten Post
Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         LONG LAW, LLC
         3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Telephone: (302) 729-9100

BP AMERICA: Fitzgerald Sues Over Underpayment of Gas Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY NASH FITZGERALD, as TRUSTEE OF THE JACKSON FAMILY MINERAL
TRUST, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY a/k/a BPX
ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01033-MEH (D. Colo., April 14,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of lease.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to comply with its
express duties under the leases to pay royalties to the Plaintiff
and Class members for natural gas used off the lease premises. The
Defendant allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of
royalty from the Plaintiff and Class members by falsely
representing on the check stubs provided monthly to them that the
Defendant was paying royalty on the full volume and value of
production from their wells, when in fact, it was not.

BP America Production Company, also known as BPX Energy, is an oil
and gas exploration and production company, with its principal
place of business in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
         W. Greg Wright, Esq.
         Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
         Brandon C. Landt, Esq.
         SHARP LAW, LLP
         5301 West 75th Street
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 gwright@midwest-law.com
                 sgoodger@midwest-law.com
                 blandt@midwest-law.com

CANAAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Canaan, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CAN) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between
February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until June 14, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines,
primarily in the Peoples Republic of China (the "PRC"). It is
organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, headquartered in
Hangzhon PRC and its ADRs are listed and trade on the NASDAQ Global
Market.

On Monday, April 12, 2021, Canaan issued a press release finally
disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results for the
period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year
decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter.

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

The complaint, filed on April 15, 2021, alleges that the statements
Canaan issued during the Class Period about the Company's business
metrics and financial prospects were materially false and
misleading in that they concealed that due to ongoing supply chain
disruptions and the introduction of the Company's next-generation
A12 series bitcoin mining machines -- which had cannibalized sales
of the older product offerings -- Canaan's 4Q20 sales had declined
more than 93% year-over-year compared to its fourth quarter fiscal
year 2019 ("4Q19") sales and more than 93% quarter-over-quarter
compared to its third quarter FY20 ("3Q20") sales. As a result,
Canaan's 4Q20 total net revenues had decreased to RMB38.2 million
(US$5.9 million) from RMB463.2 million in the 4Q19 and RMB163.0
million in the 3Q20.

If you purchased Canaan ADRs during the Class Period and suffered a
loss, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                      About Bragar Eagel

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

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

CANAAN INC: Johnson Fistel, LLP Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN)
("Canaan" or the "Company") stock. The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Canaan between February 10, 2021 and
April 9, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move
the Court no later than June 14, 2021.

The Canaan class action lawsuit alleges that Canaan's fiscal year
2020 ("FY20") ended on December 31, 2020. On February 9, 2021,
nearly six weeks later, Canaan announced that its former Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO"), Quanfu Hong ("Hong"), had suddenly
resigned effective immediately, providing no explanation as to why
and citing only "personal reasons." The next day, February 10,
2021, Canaan issued a press release announcing that its "revenue
visibility ha[d] improved substantially" and making other positive
statements about purported visibility into increases in the size
and quality of orders the Company had been receiving. These
statements were heralded by the investment community in light of
former CFO Hong's statements on November 30, 2020, that "the demand
for mining machines in the market continued to rebound during the
third quarter, and" that Canaan had "received a large number of
pre-sale orders which [were] scheduled for delivery starting in the
fourth quarter of 2020." ("4Q20"). Predictably, the market reacted
positively to these statements, driving up the market price of
Canaan ADRs from their open of $6.91 each on February 8, to close
at $13.04 each on February 12, an increase of nearly 90%.

Yet the statements Canaan issued during the Class Period about the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects were materially
false and misleading in that they concealed that due to ongoing
supply chain disruptions and the introduction of the Company's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines -- which had
cannibalized sales of the older product offerings -- Canaan's 4Q20
sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year compared to its
fourth-quarter fiscal year 2019 ("4Q19") sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third-quarter FY20 ("3Q20")
sales. As a result, Canaan's 4Q20 total net revenues had decreased
to RMB38.2 million (US$5.9 million) from RMB463.2 million in 4Q19
and RMB163.0 million in 3Q20.

On April 12, 2021, before the opening of trading, Canaan issued a
press release, finally disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20
financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, including
a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and net
revenues for the quarter. On this news, the market price of Canaan
ADRs collapsed from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021,
to close at $13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly
30%, on unusually high volume of approximately 60 million ADRs
trading, more than three times the average daily volume over the
preceding ten trading days.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Canaan class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Canaan class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Canaan class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more
about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com)
at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you. [GN]

CANAAN INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-canaan-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent
purchasers of Canaan Inc. ("Canaan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CAN)
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between
February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021 (the "Class Period") (the
"Canaan class action lawsuit"). The Canaan class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Denny
v. Canaan Inc., No. 21-cv-03299.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Canaan ADRs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Canaan class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Canaan class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the Canaan class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Canaan
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Canaan
class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days
from today. If you wish to discuss the Canaan class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K. Blasy of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 631-454-7719 or via e-mail at
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-canaan-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Canaan class action lawsuit charges Canaan and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Canaan designs, manufactures, and sells bitcoin mining
machines, primarily in the People's Republic of China.

The Canaan class action lawsuit alleges that Canaan's fiscal year
2020 ("FY20") ended on December 31, 2020. On February 9, 2021,
nearly six weeks later, Canaan announced that its former Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO"), Quanfu Hong ("Hong"), had suddenly
resigned effective immediately, providing no explanation as to why
and citing only "personal reasons." The next day, February 10,
2021, Canaan issued a press release announcing that its "revenue
visibility ha[d] improved substantially" and making other positive
statements about purported visibility into increases in the size
and quality of orders the Company had been receiving. These
statements were heralded by the investment community in light of
former CFO Hong's statements on November 30, 2020 that "the demand
for mining machines in the market continued to rebound during the
third quarter, and" that Canaan had "received a large number of
pre-sale orders which [were] scheduled for delivery starting in the
fourth quarter of 2020." ("4Q20"). Predictably, the market reacted
positively to these statements, driving up the market price of
Canaan ADRs from their open of $6.91 each on Monday, February 8 to
close at $13.04 each on Friday, February 12, an increase of nearly
90%.

Yet the statements Canaan issued during the Class Period about the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects were materially
false and misleading in that they concealed that due to ongoing
supply chain disruptions and the introduction of the Company's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines – which had
cannibalized sales of the older product offerings – Canaan's 4Q20
sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year compared to its
fourth quarter fiscal year 2019 ("4Q19") sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter FY20 ("3Q20")
sales. As a result, Canaan's 4Q20 total net revenues had decreased
to RMB38.2 million (US$5.9 million) from RMB463.2 million in 4Q19
and RMB163.0 million in 3Q20.

On Monday, April 12, 2021, before the opening of trading, Canaan
issued a press release finally disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20
financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, including
a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and net
revenues for the quarter. On this news, the market price of Canaan
ADRs collapsed from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021
to close at $13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly
30%, on unusually high volume of approximately 60 million ADRs
trading, more than three times the average daily volume over the
preceding ten trading days.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For eight
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]

CANOO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Canoo
Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

Canoo Inc. f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ:
GOEV)
Class Period: August 18, 2020 - March 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Canoo had decreased its focus on its plan to
sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model; (2) that
Canoo would de-emphasize its engineering services business; (3)
that, contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships
with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the
previously announced partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Court Certifies Rodriguez Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CASCADE
COLLECTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00120-JNP-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon.
Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order grantng in part plaintiff
Rodriguez's motion for class certification, finding that all of the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
have been met.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

   1. The court certifies Francisco Rodriguez as the class
      representative.

   2. The court appoints David J. McGlothlin and Ryan L. McBride of

      the Kazerouni Law Group, APC as class counsel.

   3. The court certifies a class action lawsuit and defines the
      class as follows:

      "All persons with addresses within Utah; who were sent any
      communication on behalf of Astor Brothers & Co.; to recover a

      consumer debt; which were not returned undelivered by the
      United States Postal Service; from February 21, 2019 until
      February 21, 2020; in which the communication provided the
      following language: "If you dispute the validity of this debt

      or any part of it, you must notify us either by writing to
      Cascade Collections, LLC, P.O. Box 970547, Orem, UT 84097, or

      by calling toll-free 855-978-7184 or locally (801) 900-3328
      within 30 days of the date of this letter; otherwise we will

      consider this debt to be valid and proceed accordingly.
      Please pay the Amount Due. We would like to collect the
      Amount Due in an efficient and convenient way. If you are
      able to pay the Amount Due in full at once please do so. On
      the other hand, if you are unable to pay the amount in full
      at once, we are able to set up a payment plan so that the
      Amount Due is paid gradually over time. Please note that the

      Amount Due is the balance as of the date listed above and may

      or may not include interest, accruing interest, costs, or
      other fees. Please contact this office to determine how the
      Amount Due is calculated and to determine the balance."

   4. The court orders Rodriguez to submit a proposal for notice
      and the class administration process that identifies the form

      and method for notifying the class members. The proposal must

      satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and
      (e)(1) and due process and constitute the best notice
      practicable under the circumstances.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x0DxHL at no extra charge.[CC]


CHANCELLOR HEALTH: Faces Purwal Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chancellor Health
Care, Inc. The case is captioned as Sandeep Purwal v. Chancellor
Health Care, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00296929-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., March 19, 2021).

The Defendants include Chancellor Health Care of California VIII,
Inc., Chancellor Health Care, Inc., Does 1-100, and Revere Assisted
Living Community.

Chancellor Health Care, LLC, owns and operates a full continuum of
care, temporary respite stays, short-term rehabilitation, and
nursing homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave Ste 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

CHASE INC: Faces Keppler Employment Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chase Inc. The case
is captioned as KEPPLER vs. CHASE INC., Case No. BCV-21-100637
(Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March 19, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Clark.

Chase Inc. provides services and supports to people with differing
abilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

CHRISTAL TRANSPORT: Conditional Cert. of Truck Driver Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAMEL GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHRISTAL TRANSPORT, LLC and ORALDO SOSA, Case No. 0:21-cv-60278-UU
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action under
      the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with the proposed
      collective described as:

      "All truck drivers who worked for Christal Transport, LLC at

      any time after February 2, 2018;"

   2. compelling production by the Defendants, within 15 days of
      the Court order granting conditional certification, of a
      complete list of each and every person -- and their last
      known mailing address, email address, and telephone number --

      who was employed, by the Defendant as a truck driver;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel mailing of a Court-
      approved Notice to all such persons of their right to opt
      into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join
      Lawsuit; and

   4. granting any such other relief the Court deems just and
      proper.

The Plaintiff's claim is for unpaid overtime under the FLSA. The
Plaintiff was an intrastate truck driver for the Defendants, and
was never paid overtime because he was misclassified an independent
contractor.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ghXdkB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey K. Black, Esq.
          Cody Shilling, Esq.
          BLACK LAW P.A.
          1401 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 204
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 320-6220
          E-mail: kelsey@kkbpa.com
                  cs@kkbpa.com

CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Employee Class Wins Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP SAUNDERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CNC
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-00023-NDF (D. Wyo.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the class of:

      "Current and former employees of CNC Oilfield Services, LLC,
      who worked as vacuum truck drivers in Wyoming, at any point
      from February 12, 2018 to the present."

   2. authorizing Notice and Consent Forms to be disseminated by
      first class U.S. Mail, e-mail, and potentially text message
      in accordance with the following schedule:

           Deadline                             Subject

      14 days from Order           Defendant to provide to
      approving  notice            Plaintiffs' counsel in Excel (-
      to Potential Class Members   xlsx) format the following
                                   information regarding all
                                   Putative Class Members: full
                                   name; last known addresses with
                                   city, state, and zip Code; last
                                   known personal e-mail addresses
                                   (non-company address if
                                   applicable); last known contact
                                   phone number; beginning dates
of
                                   employment; and ending dates of
                                   employment (if applicable).

      28 days from Order           Plaintiffs' counsel shall send a

      approving  notice            copy of the Court-approved
      to Potential                 Notice and Consent Form to the
      Class Members                Putative Class Members by first
                                   class U.S. Mail and email.
                                   Plaintiffs' counsel may follow-
                                   up the mailed Notice and
Consent
                                   Forms with contact by text
                                   message of those Putative Class
                                   Members whose mailed or emailed
                                   contact information is not
                                   valid.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4Lvh9 at no extra charge.[CC]

CONAGRA BRANDS: Bid for Attorney Fees in Michael ERISA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICKI MICHAEL, individually and as representative on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v.
CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY RATE PRODUCTION
WORKERS, an employee pension benefit Plan; CONAGRA BRANDS EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, the Plan Administrator; CONAGRA
BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE, and DOES I-XX, individual members of the
Plan administrative and/or appeals committees, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00277-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C. Nye of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho denied the Defendants'
Motion for Attorney Fees.

The moving Defendants are Conagra Brands, Inc. Pension Plan for
Hourly Rate Production Workers, Conagra Brands Employee Benefits
Administrative Committee, and Conagra Brands Appeals Committee, and
Does I-XX.

On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff Michael filed her complaint.  The
Defendants filed a Motion for More Definite Statement which the
Court granted.  Michael filed an Amended Complaint.  In her Amended
Complaint, Michael brought three causes of action; each based on
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
Michael brought these claims on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated.

In early communications between the Court and the counsel, it was
decided that the most economical way to manage the litigation would
be to first address the "merits" of Michael's claim and then, if
necessary, move to class certification and beyond.

On March 2, 2020, Michael filed her motion for summary judgment.
The Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment followed.  The
Court held oral argument, and on Oct. 30, 2020, it issued an order
granting summary judgments in the Defendants' favor.

The main disagreement between the parties in the case is how to
interpret certain language regarding years of service when
calculating Michael's retirement amount.  The Court found that
while the language in the plan was not crystal clear, Defendants
interpretation best conformed with other relevant terms and clauses
within the plan as well as the plan's underlying goals.

In relevant part, the Court found that the plan language capped
benefits at 35 years of service (regardless of how calculated).
Critically, Michael acknowledged the 35-year cap and admitted that
it applied to her.  This recognition, among other conclusions,
resulted in the Court's decision in favor of the Defendants.

The Defendants subsequently filed the instant motion for attorney
fees arguing they are entitled to litigation reimbursement because
Michael's "motives in pursuing the action were questionable."  They
allege that Michael "had to know she did not have a viable claim,
and therefore her pursuit of the litigation imposed an unnecessary
burden on the Defendants to defend against the class action.

Ms. Michael opposes the motion outright and contests the amount of
fees requested, asserting that while the Court may have ultimately
ruled against her, she had a legitimate basis for her suit.

Judge Nye concludes that the Court did not find sufficient basis to
support any of Michael's claims and granted summary judgment in the
Defendants favor.  However, there was not bad faith or culpability
on Michael's part in bringing the suit, and there is no reason to
go against the precedent disfavoring awarding fees against a
plaintiff/employee in ERISA cases.  Although the Defendants did
have the more meritorious position and prevailed on the underlying
case, they are not entitled to attorney fees.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5645mmjd from
Leagle.com.


DALLAS COUNTY: Sanchez Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR SANCHEZ, TESMOND
MCDONALD, MARCELO PEREZ, ROGER MORRISON, KEITH BAKER, PAUL WRIGHT,
TERRY MCNICKELS, JOSE MUNOZ, OLIVIA WASHINGTON, and IDEARE BAILEY,
on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF MARIAN BROWN, in her official
capacity, and DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00832-E (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action and appointing
      undersigned counsel as class counsel under Rule 23 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   2. certifying the following classes and subclasses:

      -- Pre-Adjudication Class

         "All current and future detainees in pretrial custody at
         the Dallas County Jail, including individuals detained for

         alleged violations of probation or parole";


      -- Medically-Vulnerable Pre-Adjudication Subclass

         "All current and future detainees in in pretrial custody
         at the Dallas County Jail, including individuals detained

         for alleged violations of probation or parole, who,
         according to the Centers for Disease Control and
         Prevention (CDC), are or may be at increased risk for
         severe illness or death from COVID-19 due to their age and

         their health conditions, including individuals with the
         following conditions:

         -- Aged 50 years or older
         -- Cancer
         -- Chronic Kidney Disease
         -- Chronic lung diseases, including COPD (chronic
            obstructive pulmonary disease), asthma (moderate-to-
            severe), interstitial lung disease, cystic
            fibrosis, and pulmonary hypertension
         -- Dementia or other neurological conditions
         -- Diabetes (type 1 or type 2)
         -- Down syndrome
         -- Heart conditions (such as heart failure, coronary
            artery disease, cardiomyopathies or hypertension)
         -- HIV infection
         -- Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system)
         -- Liver disease
         -- Overweight (defined as a body mass index (BMI) > 25
            kg/m 2 but < 30 kg/m 2 ), obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m 2
but <
            40 kg/m 2 ), or severe obesity (BMI of ≥40 kg/m 2 )
         -- Pregnancy
         -- Sickle cell disease or thalassemia
         -- Smoking, current or former
         -- Solid organ or blood stem cell transplant
         -- Stroke or cerebrovascular disease, which affects blood
            flow to the brain
         -- Substance use disorders"; and

      -- Post-Adjudication Class

         " All current and future detainees in
post-adjudication
         custody at the Dallas County Jail, including those
serving
         a term of incarceration pursuant to an adjudicated
         violation of probation or parole" and

      -- Medically-Vulnerable Post-Adjudication Subclass

         All current and future detainees in post-adjudication
         custody at the Dallas County Jail, including those serving

         a term of incarceration pursuant to an adjudicated
         violation of probation or parole, who, according to the
         CDC, are or may be at increased risk for severe illness or

         death from COVID-19 due to their age and their health
         conditions, including individuals with the conditions
         listed in the above definition of the Medically-Vulnerable

         Pre-Adjudication Subclass.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3slfxvu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Henderson Hill, Esq.
          Andrea Woods, Esq.
          Liza Weisberg, Esq.
          Lauren Kuhlik, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL
          LIBERTIES FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          (212) 549-2546
          E-mail: Awoods@aclu.org
                  Liza.weisberg@gmail.com
                  hhill@aclu.org
                  LKuhlik@aclu.org

               - and -

          Adam Safwat, Esq.
          Sarah ChoiWEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 682-7000
          E-mail: adam.safwat@weil.com
                  sarah.choi@weil.com

               - and -

          Brian Klosterboer, Esq.
          Adriana Pinon, Esq.
          Savannah Kumar, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
          5225 Katy Fwy., Suite 350
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Facsimile: (346) 998-1577

               - and -

          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Barry Barnett, Esq.
          SUSMAN G ODFREY L.L.P.
          8115 Preston Road, Suite 575
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (866) 754-1900
          E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Michael Gervais, Esq.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          E-mail: mgervais@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Alison Grinter, Esq.
          Kim T. Cole, Esq.
          NEXT GENERATION ACTION NETWORK
          1808 South Good Latimer Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75226
          Telephone: (214) 704-6400
          E-mail: agrinter@thengan.com
                  kcole@thengan.com

DANIEL MULLINS: Esprit Sues Over Denied Employment Based on Race
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN ESPRIT and SONNEL ESPRIT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DANIEL MULLINS TRUCKING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00855-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla., April
9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful and
discriminatory employment practices.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs passed the
qualifications for the Defendant's company driver job posting but
were not hired due to their race.

Both Plaintiffs are African Americans whose applications for the
Defendant's company driver post were denied.

Daniel Mullins Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company based in Tampa,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
              
         Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
         Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
         FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
         16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
         Lutz, FL 33558
         Telephone: (727) 254-5255
         Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
         E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com
                 wolfgang@fgbolaw.com

DEMITROUS COOK: Snapchat Class Action Suit Settles for $90,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
patch.com reports that the Evanston City Council voted 7-1 to pay
$90,000 to settle a class action lawsuit filed against the city and
its police chief over a social media post last year. Records show
another federal lawsuit remains pending. The only alderman to vote
against approving the settlement payment said the affair has
already cost the city more than $130,000.

Demitrous Cook said he inadvertently publicly posted photos of
printed mugshots on the Snapchat app in February 2020. The photos
were accompanied by handwritten notes saying things like, "In
custody," "Pending," "DOA" and "HIV." Cook's post was deleted
within an hour, but screenshots were widely shared.

"I've used the Snapchat camera in my personal life to take photos
and store them on my phone, and I didn't realize they could be made
public with the click of a button," Cook said last February. "These
photos were taken to assist me with an investigation and should
have never been made public."

The images included the names, addresses, birthdays and images of
dozens of people. One man, Kevin Logan, whose image was depicted
alongside the annotation "HIV," filed an eight-count federal civil
rights lawsuit shortly after Cook's apology.

Five other people filed a five-count class action complaint in May
2o20. That suit was amended in October after U.S. District Judge
Matthew Kennelly issued an opinion on both cases, dismissing some
of the counts and allowing others to stand.

Kennelly described part of the city's argument as "unpersuasive"
and another as too late, but ruled that the plaintiffs had not
sufficiently claimed any harm as a result of Cook's posts.

Attorneys for the five men argued Cook's post had put them in
danger, whether intentionally, recklessly or indifferently.

"Several of the individuals who had their personal information
publicly disclosed by Defendant Cook are reputed members of street
gangs," the complaint said. "The public sharing of Plaintiffs' home
addresses puts Plaintiffs and their family at risk of physical harm
from others who, due to Defendant Cook's actions, now have
Plaintiff's home address."

As a result of the chief's posting their home addresses, two men
had their property damaged by bullets, two people received
threatening messages including their home addresses, several lost
jobs or job opportunities, and one man was shot by people who
followed him from his home addresses after Cook shared it,
according to the amended complaint.

Funding for the $90,000 settlement payment to put an end to the
class action suit was provided out of the city's insurance fund.
The settlement payment does not represent admission of liability by
city officials.

Patch has requested records from the city about other settlement
payments to people who did not join the class action, as well as
how much money taxpayers have paid in Cook's and other legal fees,
and will update here when received.

In Logan's suit, a status hearing has been set for June 10 ahead of
a July 30 deadline for the completion of the discovery phase.

Ald. Tom Suffredin, 6th Ward, was the lone vote against the
approval of the settlement. Neither the mayor nor any of the other
eight aldermen made any comment on the matter.

"I'm sure this was inadvertent, but it has cost the city upwards of
$130,000 at this point," Suffredin said. "As far as I can tell,
there's been no accountability from the employee responsible for
it." [GN]

DHL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Hidden Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson at cbc.ca reports that a Vancouver law firm is going
to court against DHL, alleging the courier giant profited by
misrepresenting some of the fees it charges customers.

According to a proposed class action filed in B.C. Supreme Court
last week, the North American operations for DHL's express courier
delivery service have been requiring customers to pay extra fees to
receive their parcels by making claims that are "false, misleading
and deceptive."

Court documents claim that DHL leads customers to believe that fees
they must pay once a parcel arrives from out of the country are
government import and tax fees -- when a large portion of them are
actually going to DHL as a "processing fee."

"I don't think anybody has any difficulty paying for taxes and duty
that's properly owing and payable," said the Vancouver lawyer
behind the class action, Scott Stanley.

"It's when there's additional fees that aren't clear where people
get their backs up."

The lead plaintiff in the case is Gayle Vallance -- a retired
school teacher from Fernie, B.C. Court documents say Vallance
ordered two books on fabric weaving from the U.K. in February --
paying DHL $98 for shipping.

Nine days later, she was advised by DHL that her shipment had
arrived in Canada, but she had to pay $33.16 in "duties and taxes"
before it would be delivered.

"At all material times prior to payment, DHL represented to the
Plaintiff that the fee being charged on her shipment was for duties
and taxes," say court documents.

The claim says Vallance only learned "after numerous inquiries to
DHL" that $17 of that fee went to the courier company as a
processing fee.

Hidden fees?
At issue in the proposed class action is how transparent the
company is about the fees it charges customers.

Court documents say that DHL usually sends an email to customers
with the subject line "IMPORT DUTY/TAX PAYMENT," advising them to
pay up or risk losing their parcel.

The case says people paid the fees, believing them to be for duties
and taxes. "In reality," says the claim, the fees charged "included
a DHL processing or brokerage fee."

"This was a hidden fee."

Stanley says customers are "already paying DHL to deliver these
packages -- they're not doing this for free. And this seems to be
an extra charge that we say isn't clearly described for the
consumer."

The proposed lawsuit says DHL conducted an "unlawful scheme" that
breaches a section of the federal Competition Act and "constituted
an unfair business practice contrary to consumer protection
legislation" across Canada.

"DHL was unjustly enriched by its conduct," says the civil claim.

Go Public recently reported the story of a Calgary woman who --
like Vallance -- was surprised to learn that a chunk of the "duty
and taxes" she believed she owed the government for importing a
soccer jersey for her son was actually going to DHL as a processing
fee.

After her story was published, Go Public heard from dozens of other
customers who felt they, too, were misled by notifications from DHL
that suggested all the additional fees -- on top of the shipping
already paid -- were government charges.

According to the company's website, DHL is the biggest
international courier company in the world, headquartered in
Germany. With more than 380,000 employees, it serves more than 220
countries and territories and delivers almost 1.6 billion parcels a
year.

DHL has yet to file a statement of defence, and the class action
has not been certified -- which determines whether it moves
forward.

When contacted for a response, DHL spokesperson Daniel McGrath said
the company does not comment "on active legal matters." When
contacted about our previous Go Public story about alleged hidden
fees, DHL spokesperson Hazel Valencia said information about the
company's processing fee "is available on the DHL website."

Who is included in proposed class action?
Although filed in B.C., the proposed class action represents all
residents of Canada who have paid DHL fees.

It seeks compensation for people who "sustained loss and damage" by
paying DHL's processing or brokerage fees.

It also seeks payment for the "stress and anxiety" caused by
spending time investigating the fees charged by DHL, communicating
with DHL and reporting the company's "unlawful conduct" to the
Better Business Bureau and other consumer protection
organizations.

The proposed class action is similar to one filed on behalf of
Ontario residents against United Parcel Service in 2007. It, too,
centred on brokerage fees that were charged to customers --
allegedly without their knowledge. The case was settled in 2018.
[GN]

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Strike Out Application in Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that the class action against Domino's Pizza
alleging that it engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in
contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) as to
the pay rates and terms and conditions of employment applicable to
its franchisees' employees will continue after the Federal Court
dismissed Domino's application to strike out the applicant's
Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Significantly, Murphy J declined to strike out parts of statement
of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of
action because a claim under s 236 of the ACL is not available as a
matter of law. Domino's argues that the applicant is effectively
seeking recovery of unpaid award entitlements through a claim for
misleading and deceptive conduct under the ACL. It argues that the
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) constitutes an exclusive code in relation
to claims concerning underpayment of award entitlements which
precludes claims such as this made under the ACL.

Murphy J acknowledged that Domino's argument on this point is "not
without force" but found that it is "at least reasonably arguable
that a claim under the ACL is also available to the applicant and
group members".

Domino's was ordered to pay the costs of the application. [GN]

DR. ING: Turner Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRUCE C. TURNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DR. ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE AG and PORSCHE
CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00914, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02586-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose, breach of express warranty, and violation
of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law by failing to comply with their guarantees related to the Class
vehicles' emissions standards and by closing the secondary market
for the Class vehicles' sale via the November 2020 Stop Sale
Order.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG is an automobile manufacturer,
headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is an automobile company, with its
principal place of business located at One Porsche Drive, Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
         Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
         Patrick Howard, Esq.
         SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
         One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
         1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 575-3985
         E-mail: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
                 sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com

                - and –

         Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
         Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
         Ria Momblanco, Esq.
         FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, RPC
         One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Telephone: (215) 567-6565
         Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
         E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                 gdever@finekaplan.com
                 rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

                - and –

         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
         Ling Wang, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
         120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                 lwang@gustafsongluek.com

                - and –

         Michael J. Boni, Esq.
         Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
         Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq.
         BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
         15 St. Asaphs Road
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Telephone: (610) 822-0200
         E-mail: mboni@boniack.com
                 jsnyder@bonizack.com
                 beichel@bonizack.com

EAH INC: Labor Law Attorneys File Labor Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against EAH Inc.
for allegedly failing to provide employees with legally compliant
meal and rest periods. The EAH Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No.
21CV00884, is currently pending in the Santa Cruz County Superior
Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be
read at
https://zakaylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EAH_Conformed-Complaint.pdf.

According to the lawsuit, EAH, Inc. allegedly violated California
Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512,
558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay
minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal
and rest periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(5) reimburse employees for required expenses; and (6) provide
wages when due.

Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on
the established payday for the period involved, not less than the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period,
whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or
otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as
"the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." EAH Inc.
allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after
their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal
breaks. The lawsuit alleges EAH Inc. failed to compensate its
employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control
while working off-the-clock. As such, EAH Inc. allegedly failed to
pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked
in a payroll period.

If you would like to know more about the EAH Inc. lawsuit, please
contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys if you need help with workplace
issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation,
discrimination, and harassment. [GN]

EAST PENN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Hummel Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HUMMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
PROFIT SHARING & 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01652 (E.D. Pa., April 7, 2021)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff assert in the complaint that the Defendants breached
their duties owed to the East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. Profit
Sharing & 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan"), to the Plaintiff, and
all other Plan participants by imprudently failing to monitor the
retirement plan services ("RPS") fees paid by the Plan to ensure
that they were reasonable and, as a result, causing the Plan to pay
objectively unreasonable and excessive RPS fees, relative to the
RPS received. The Defendants also imprudently failed to take
standard and customary actions to understand the market for RPS in
order to monitor for reasonableness the RPS fees paid by the Plan
in relation to the RPS received, and failed to take standard and
customary actions to understand the market for RPS in order to
monitor for reasonableness the RPS fees paid by the Plan in
relation to the RPS received.

The Plaintiff was injured by the Defendants' actions because the
Defendants permitted all Plan participants to be charged excessive
RPS fees, which reduced Plaintiff's and other Plan participants'
account balances and caused them significantly diminished
investment returns.

East Penn Manufacturing Company Inc. manufactures batteries. The
Company offers lead acid batteries, battery accessory products,
marine, automobile, and industrial batteries. East Penn
Manufacturing operates worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com

               -and-

          Paul R. Wood, Esq.
          Timothy Foster, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: woodp@fdazar.com
                  fostert@fdazar.com


EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ebang
International Holdings, Inc. Investors have until the deadline
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Ebang International Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBON)
Class Period: June 26, 2020 – April 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 7, 2021

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had
been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter
and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's
operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company
had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of
defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

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



EBANG INTERNATIONAL: The Schall Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Ebang
International Holdings Inc. ("Ebang" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
EBON) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 26,
2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 7, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ebang directed the proceeds of its public
offerings into low yield, long-term bonds and to related parties
instead of developing its operations and infrastructure. The
Company inflated its declining sales through schemes such as
selling defective units. The Company's prior attempts to go public
in Hong Kong failed due to allegations of embezzlement and
inflating sales figures. The Company's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was actually the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
solution. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Ebang, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

ECHO GLOBAL: Lander Suit Seeks OT Pay for Sales Representatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN LANDER, ZAKEIA HAMPTON, and ARIS CIENEGA, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ECHO GLOBAL
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal., March
23, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who
have worked as exempt-classified inside salespeople at Echo Global
nationwide in the roles of Client Sales Representative, Client
Solutions Executive, Inside Sales Representative, National Sales
Representative, Sales Representative, Carrier Sales Representative,
Carrier Development Representative, and other similar positions
("Sales Representatives").

Echo Global is a transportation logistics company with
approximately 30 branch sales offices located in approximately 13
states. Echo Global employs Sales Representatives, such as
Plaintiffs, to make sales of its third-party logistics services to
current and prospective clients.

According to the complaint, while employed by Echo Global, the
Plaintiffs consistently worked more than 8 hours per day and more
than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation
for all the hours they worked. Throughout the relevant period, it
was Echo Global's policy to deprive Plaintiffs of their earned
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders and regulations,
and the California Unfair Business Practices Law, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs contend that during the relevant period, it has been
Echo Global's policy to uniformly classify Sales Representatives,
including Plaintiffs, as exempt from federal and state overtime
provisions and not to pay Sales Representatives any overtime
wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com

EDUCATIONAL OUTFITTERS: Miranda Sues Over FACTA Non-Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
DORENE MIRANDA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL OUTFITTERS GROUP LLC, a Colorado
company, and J&K UNIFORMS LLC, a Florida company, Defendants, Case
No. 124182644 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., April 1, 2021) alleges the
Defendants of violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants willfully and knowingly
failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing the
first (6) and the last (4) digits of credit and debit card numbers
on point-of-sale transaction receipts. In addition, the Defendants
printed the cardholders' names and telephone numbers on the
receipts, the Plaintiff adds.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have been burdened
with an invasion of their privacy, breach of their confidence in
the safe handling of their account information, breach of implied
bailment, a material increased risk, and were burdened with the
need to keep or destroy the receipt to prevent further disclosure
of their account information.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated persons seeking to recover damages from the
Defendants, such as statutory damages, nominal damages, and
punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court deems
proper under the circumstances.

Educational Outfitters Group LLC and J&K Uniforms LLC offer school
uniforms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     
          James S. Giardina, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3104 W. Waters Ave., Ste. 200
          Tampa, FL 33614
          Tel: (813) 413-5610
          Fax: (866) 535-7199
          E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com

                - and –

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWNERS, P.A.
          2750 N. 29th Ave., Ste. 209A
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (954) 589-0588
          Fax: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


ELANCO ANIMAL: Collars for Dogs & Cats Are Harmful, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AITANA VARGAS and FAYE HEMSLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02506 (C.D. Calif., March 22, 2021) alleges that
Defendant misrepresented the collars for dogs and cats under its
"Seresto" brand (Product) through affirmative statements,
half-truths, and omissions regarding the safety of the Product.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels, and sells
collars for dogs and cats under its "Seresto" brand purporting to
kill and repel fleas and ticks (the "Product" or "Products").

During the period from March 22, 2015, to the present, the
Plaintiffs purchased the Seresto collar Products for their pets.

The Seresto Products, like other flea and tick collars, work by
releasing small amounts of pesticide onto the animal for months at
a time. However, according to a recent report by the Midwest Center
for Investigative Reporting ("MCIR") and USA TODAY, based on
information obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD")
from the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), thousands of pets
are being harmed and dying from the Seresto collar Products.

According to MCIR's report, the dangers posed by the Seresto collar
Products have been known for years to the EPA and Elanco.
Nevertheless, the Seresto Products continue to be sold to consumers
and their four-legged companions, the suit says.

Since the Seresto Product's introduction, those who experienced its
harmful effects complained through Amazon.com's customer reviews,
through social media, to the EPA, and to Elanco's previous owner,
German conglomerate Bayer.
These complaints run the gamut from skin irritation to neurological
issues including seizures to death.

Yet nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties,
and/or packaging of the Seresto collar Products does Defendant
disclose that the Products can cause severe injury and/or death in
the dogs and cats who wear them and to their human caregivers,
added the suit.

The Defendant warrants, promises, represents, labels, and/or
advertises that the Seresto collar Products are safe for use
through the pictures of the happy, healthy dogs and cats which
appear on the front of the Product packaging.

The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional
profits at the expense of consumers.

By engaging in the misleading and deceptive marketing at issue,
Elanco reaped and continues to reap increased sales and profits. As
a result of Elanco's alleged false and misleading representations
and 27 omissions at issue, the Products are sold at premium prices,
no less than $40 for a small collar, excluding tax, compared to
other similar products represented in a non- misleading way, and
higher than they would be sold for absent the false and misleading
representations and omissions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 393-0070
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steffan Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
          100 South Commons, Suite 102
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (888) 412-5291

ENBRIDGE US: Hamrick FLSA Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACKY DALE HAMRICK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.), INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-03647, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00470-LPL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated welding inspectors overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Enbridge (U.S.), Inc. is an energy transportation company
headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

                 - and –

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

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Attorneys' Fees Award in Reyes Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEMETA REYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
LP; ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC., Appellants v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-55909 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the
district court's order granting attorneys' fees and costs.

Reyes filed a putative class action lawsuit against Experian
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Initially,
the district court dismissed the claims because it did not believe
that the evidence supported willful noncompliance. Reyes appealed
and prevailed. After remand, the district court found Reyes had
standing and certified the class. The parties then reached a
proposed settlement, which included automatic payment to class
members of at least $270 after deductions. That settlement received
preliminary approval. Although the district court noted that the
requested fee award (35%) was on the high side, it indicated it
might nonetheless be fair.

Because the presiding judge retired, the case was reassigned.
Shortly thereafter, class counsel moved for attorneys' fees, costs,
and a service award payment. Class counsel requested a fee award of
33%, to which no objection was made, along with evidentiary support
for that request. However, the district court granted only a 16.67%
fee. Class counsel appeals that award.

The district court awarded attorneys' fees as a percentage of the
fund. When the percentage method is used, 25% of the fund is the
"benchmark" award. An adjustment, either up or down, "must be
accompanied by a reasonable explanation of why the benchmark is
unreasonable under the circumstances."

Typically, in setting the fee the court should consider: (1) the
results; (2) risk to class counsel; (3) secondary benefits of the
settlement; (4) the market rate in the particular field of law; (5)
the burdens class counsel experienced; and (6) whether the fee was
contingent. Whether the award would generate a windfall is also
relevant. None of those factors supports a below "benchmark" award
in the case, according to the Appellate Court.

By any measure, class counsel was successful. According to an
expert witness, the settlement was the largest "Experian has ever
agreed to in a case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act," and the
settlement's "structure is the FCRA gold standard, providing direct
cash payments with no claim required and barring reversion back to
Experian. The distribution of settlement funds will not be
depressed because of the claims rate." As a secondary benefit of
this years-long representation, Experian deleted more than 56,000
delinquent loan accounts after this litigation began. Before
deletion, those delinquent accounts depressed class members' credit
scores.

According to the Memorandum, the 16.67% fee award falls below the
market rate fee award in FCRA class action settlements. And no
windfall is apparent. Assuming a 25% award, the lodestar crosscheck
returns a multiplier of 2.88. Similar lodestars are routinely
approved by this court.

The district court's reliance on megafund and wage and hour cases
to find a windfall for class counsel was somewhat inappropriate
here, the Appellate Court says. First, megafund cases are usually
those with settlements exceeding $100 million. In the case, the
settlement is about a quarter of that. Megafunds are more often a
reflection of class size than class counsel's efforts. Moreover,
the complexity of the case is similar to a wage and hour dispute
the district court cited where a 2.87 lodestar multiplier was
approved, but not the "ordinary wage-and-hour dispute" that the
district court also cited.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
the Opinion.

Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins dissents, writing that the district
court's application of the lodestar cross-check--which was the
basis for its downward adjustment from the 25-percent benchmark
that applies under the percentage-of-recovery method--was not an
abuse of discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7h6w5t62 from Leagle.com.


FABCO LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime to Laborers, Ross Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FABCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00849-E (N.D. Tex., April 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer in Grand
Prairie, Dallas County, Texas from approximately October 2, 2018 to
approximately January 18, 2021.

Fabco, LLC is a company that provides construction products and
materials, with its principal place of business located at 13835
Beaumont Highway, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
         VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
         1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (972) 707-7816
         Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
         E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com

FAIRFIELD GOURMET: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRFIELD GOURMET FOOD CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03022 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Fairfield Gourmet Food, Inc, doing business as David's Cookies,
provides bakery products. The Company offers fresh cookies,
crackers, pretzels, and cheese cakes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Shields Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL
C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE
NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed classes defined as:

      "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the
      International Swimming League from January 1, 2018 through
      the date of trial;"

      -- 2018 Damages Subclass

         "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the
         International Swimming League’s December 2018 event set
to
         take place in in Turin, Italy;"

      -- 2019 Damages Subclass

         "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the
         International Swimming League’s 2019 season;"

      -- 2022 Damages Subclass:

         "All swimmers who sign contracts to participate in the
         International Swimming League’s 2022 season, and any
         seasons thereafter through the date of trial;"

   2. designating them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ss2OqI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  cnelson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Neil A. Goteiner, Esq.
          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Joshua W. Malone, Esq.
          Hilary C. Krase, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: ngoteiner@fbm.com
                  bwisoff@fbm.com
                  jmalone@fbm.com
                  hkrase@fbm.com

FIBROGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Fibrogen, Inc., ("Fibrogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN) from
November 8, 2019, through April 6, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Fibrogen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Fibrogen Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors that:(i) that the Company's prior
disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the
roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of CKD
included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors; (ii) that
FibroGen's analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors
result in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk)
and 95% confidence intervals; (iii) that, based on these analyses,
the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of
(or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in
incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; (iv) that, as a result,
the Company faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for
roxadustat as a treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by
the FDA; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a press
release providing additional information Roxadustat which stated
that the "primary cardiovascular safety analyses included post-hoc
changes to the stratification factors."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.90, or 43%, to
close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on heavy volume. Shares
continued to fall on April 8, 2021, to close at $18.81 per share (a
decline of $0.93 per share or 4.7%), on heavy volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 11, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Fibrogen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fibrogeninc-fgen-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-390/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]


FIBROGEN INC: Faces Xu Suit Over 43% Decline of Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEIFA XU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIBROGEN, INC., ENRIQUE CONTERNO, JAMES
SCHOENECK, and K. PEONY YU, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02623
(N.D. Cal., April 12, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, FibroGen filed materially false and
misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the company's business, operations, and
prospects to attract investors to purchase FibroGen securities from
November 8, 2019, through and including April 6, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that the company's prior disclosures of U.S. primary
cardiovascular safety analyses from the Roxadustat Phase 3 program
for the treatment of anemia certain safety analyses submitted in
connection with chronic kidney disease (CKD) included post-hoc
changes to the stratification factors; (ii) that FibroGen's
analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors result in
higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95%
confidence intervals; (iii) that, based on these analyses the
company could not conclude that Roxadustat reduces the risk of (or
is superior to) Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE)+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa; (iv) that, as a result, the company faced significant
uncertainty that its New Drug Application (NDA) for Roxadustat as a
treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA); and (v) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $14.90, or
43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on heavy
volume. Shares continued to fall on April 8, 2021, to close at
$18.81 per share (a decline of $0.93 per share or 4.7%), on heavy
volume.

FibroGen, Inc. is a biotechnology company with its principal
executive offices in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
         Jeffrey J. Miles, Esq.
         BERMAN TABACCO
         44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-3200
         Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
         E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
                 jmiles@bermantabacco.com

FIBROGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of FibroGen, Inc.
(NASDAQ:FGEN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased FGEN stock or other securities between
November 8, 2019 and April 6, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/FibroGen to submit their information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.

The case alleges that FibroGen and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
FibroGen's prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety
analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of
anemia certain safety analyses submitted in connection with CKD
included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors; (ii)
FibroGen's analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors
result in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk)
and 95% confidence intervals; (iii) based on these analyses
FibroGen could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or
is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident
dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; and (iv) as a result, FibroGen
faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a
treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA.

Interested FibroGen investors have until June 11, 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.

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

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/FibroGen [GN]

FLIR SYSTEMS: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Coffman Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE COFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIR SYSTEMS, INC.; EARL R. LEWIS;
JAMES J. CANNON; JOHN D. CARTER; WILLIAM W. CROUCH; CATHERINE A.
HALLIGAN; ANGUS L. MACDONALD; MICHAEL T. SMITH; CATHY A. STAUFFER;
ROBERT S. TYRER; JOHN W. WOOD, JR., and STEVEN E. WYNNE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03059 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2021)
alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks
to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
FLIR will be acquired by Teledyne Technologies Incorporated
("Teledyne") through its subsidiaries Firework Merger Sub I, Inc.
("Merger Sub I") and Firework Merger Sub II, LLC ("Merger Sub II")
(the "Proposed Transaction").

According to the complaint on March 4, 2021, Teledyne filed a Form
S-4 Registration Statement (as amended on March 26, 2021, the
"Registration Statement") with the SEC. The Registration Statement,
which recommends that FLIR stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information concerning: (i) the financial projections for FLIR and
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's
financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman"); and (ii)
Goldman's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest.

Unless remedied, FLIR's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Registration Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction.

FLIR Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets thermal
imaging and broadcast camera systems for a variety of applications
in the commercial and government markets. The Company makes
products for condition monitoring, research and development,
airborne observation and broadcast, search and rescue, and
surveillance and reconnaissance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORMA SUPPLY: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Sanchez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORMA SUPPLY CO LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03059-PGG (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.formasupplyco.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, the suit adds.

Forma Supply Co is a men's apparel membership service that provides
monthly subscription packages. [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


FULFILLMENT LAB: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Sihler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET SIHLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE FULFILLMENT
LAB, INC; RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01528-H-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Marilyn
L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim.

The moving Defendants are The Fulfillment Lab, Inc. ("TFL"),
Richard Nelson, and Beyond Global Inc.

On Jan. 7, 2021, Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff
filed their FAC alleging Defendants TFL, Nelson, and Beyond Global
had violated numerous consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit
involves an alleged fraudulent scheme in which the Defendants
allegedly use fake celebrity endorsements and reviews and
misrepresentations about price and limited availability to induce
consumers into purchasing weight-loss pills branded "Ultra Fast
Keto Boost" and "Instant Keto."  The Defendants allegedly
subsequently charge consumers more than they originally agreed to
pay, make it difficult or impossible to return the products or
receive a refund, and operate "false front" websites to mislead
banks and credit card companies investigating chargebacks.

The Court's previous Order regarding the Plaintiffs' original
complaint granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend most
of their claims.  The Plaintiffs' FAC seeks certification of a
nationwide class and a California subclass.

They allege the following causes of action: (1) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) violation of the
unfair and fraudulent prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (4) violation of the unlawful prong of California's Unfair
Competition Law; (5) civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations ("RICO") Act violations; and (6) violation of various
state's consumer protection laws.

By the present motion, the Defendants move to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
claims upon which relief can be granted.

A. Plaintiffs' CLRA, FAL, and UCL Claims

In its prior Order, the Court concluded the Plaintiffs' complaint
had stated claims for violations of the CLRA, FAL, and the unfair,
fraudulent, and unlawful prongs of the UCL.  It concluded their
allegations were sufficient to place the Defendants on notice of
the circumstances constituting the alleged fraudulent scheme, and
to plausibly state claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL.  The Court
declined to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims, and
gave the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to re-plead
their theories of indirect liability.

Thus, the issue of whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to state claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL and to meet
Rule 9(b)'s standard has already been decided by the Court.  The
remaining issue for the Court to decide is whether, under a direct
or indirect theory of liability, the Plaintiffs' FAC states a claim
for violations of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL against any or all of the
Defendants.

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants TFL and Nelson solely argue
that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the element
of knowledge.  They argue that the BBB complaint about "Ultra Fast
Keto Boost" they responded to post-dated Plaintiff Bavencoff's Oct.
14, 2019 transaction, and therefore could not have put them on
notice of the fraudulent conduct associated with the Keto Products.
They also contend that providing order fulfillment software does
not mean they would have been aware of the website content, or have
known that the representations on the website were false.

Judge Huff concludes the FAC's allegations are sufficient to state
a plausible claim against Defendants TFL and Nelson for violations
of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL under an aiding and abetting theory of
liability. As such, she denies Defendants Beyond Global, TFL, and
Nelson's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CLRA, UCL, and FAL
claims.

B. Plaintiffs' RICO Claim

In its prior Order, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims
against Defendants with leave to amend.  It concluded that the
allegations in the original complaint were insufficient to
plausibly establish a RICO claim, and noted that the Plaintiffs had
not sufficiently pleaded that the Defendants possessed the
requisite common purpose, fraudulent intent, knowledge, and other
elements to allow the Court to reasonably infer that their facially
legitimate conduct constituted a RICO violation.

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege
the existence of an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering
activity.   They contend that the Plaintiffs' allegations
demonstrate nothing more than commercial relationships pursuant to
routine business contracts between them, and that they have failed
to plausibly plead the existence of an enterprise.  They also argue
the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that its alleged predicate
acts of wire fraud or mail fraud are part of a pattern of
racketeering activity.

Judge Huff concludes the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled the
existence of an association-in-fact enterprise among the
Defendants.  She concludes the FAC sufficiently and plausibly
pleads a pattern of racketeering activity by the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs have pled the time, place, and manner of each predicate
act, plus the role of each Defendant in the scheme, with sufficient
particularity to give the Defendants "notice of the particular
misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that
they can defend against the charge."  These allegations, she says,
are sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a pattern
of racketeering activity.  The Defendants' arguments are better
suited to a motion for summary judgment when the record is more
fully developed.  Accordingly, the Judge denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.

C. Plaintiffs' Non-California Consumer Protection State Law Claims

Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' sixth cause
of action, which asserts the Defendants have violated various
states' consumer protection statutes.

Judge Huff holds that they correctly point out that the Court
dismissed this cause of action in the Plaintiffs' original
complaint, and that the Plaintiffs have not fixed the defect with
the claim -- that they are residents of California and were injured
in California, and therefore have no standing to bring claims under
the laws of other states -- in their FAC.  The Plaintiffs state the
claim is only included in the FAC to preserve error and avoid
waiver of their original arguments.  As such, for the reasons
outlined in the Court's prior Order, the Judge grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under
non-California state laws.

For these reasons, Judge Huff denies Defendants Beyond Global, TFL,
and Nelson's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC for failure to
state claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and RICO.  She grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' non-California state
consumer protection law claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9fpk9e6m from Leagle.com.


FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticket Holders Win $7,220 Each in Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Bahr at The New York Times reports that nearly four years
after an infamous festival that was billed as an ultraluxurious
musical getaway in the Bahamas left attendees scrounging for
makeshift shelter on a dark beach, a court has decided how much the
nightmare was worth: approximately $7,220 apiece.

The $2 million class-action settlement, reached in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in the Southern District of New York between organizers and
277 ticket holders from the 2017 event, is still subject to final
approval, and the amount could ultimately be lower depending on the
outcome of Fyre's bankruptcy case with other creditors.

But Ben Meiselas, a partner at Geragos & Geragos and the lead
lawyer representing the ticket holders, said that he was happy a
resolution had at last been reached.

"Billy went to jail, ticket holders can get some money back, and
some very entertaining documentaries were made," Meiselas said in
an email mentioning Billy McFarland, the event's mastermind. "Now
that's justice."

Lawyers representing the trustee charged with Fyre's assets did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

McFarland and the festival's co-founder, the rapper Ja Rule, have
faced more than a dozen lawsuits against their company, Fyre Media,
in the event's aftermath. The plaintiffs have sought millions and
alleged fraud, breach of contract and more.

McFarland, 29, is serving a six-year prison sentence after pleading
guilty to wire fraud charges. In 2018, a court ordered him to pay
$5 million to two North Carolina residents who spent about $13,000
apiece on VIP packages for the Fyre Festival.

"I cannot emphasize enough how sorry I am that we fell short of our
goal," McFarland said in a 2017 statement, though he declined to
address specific allegations. "I'm committed to, and working
actively to, find a way to make this right, not just for investors
but for those who planned to attend."

The festival, billed as "the cultural experience of the decade,"
had been scheduled for two weekends beginning in late April 2017.
Ticket buyers, who paid between $1,000 and $12,000 to attend, were
promised an exotic island adventure with luxury accommodations,
gourmet food, the hottest musical acts and celebrity attendees.
Influencers including the models Kendall Jenner and Bella Hadid
promoted it.

But when concertgoers arrived, they were met with what the court
filing describes as "total disorganization and chaos." The "luxury
accommodations" were in fact FEMA disaster relief tents, the
"gourmet food" a cheese sandwich served in a Styrofoam container
and the "hottest musical acts" nonexistent.

The festival, which sold a total of approximately 8,000 tickets for
both weekends, was canceled on the morning it was scheduled to
begin, after many attendees had arrived. (The debacle spawned two
documentaries, on Hulu and Netflix.)

Fyre has attributed its cancellation to a combination of factors,
including the weather. But some Fyre employees later said that
higher-ups had invented extravagant accommodations like a $400,000
Artist's Palace ticket package, which included four beds, eight
V.I.P. tickets and dinner with a festival performer, just to see if
people would buy them. (There was no such palace.) Production crew
members stopped being paid as the festival date neared.

Mark Geragos, another lawyer at the firm that represented ticket
buyers in the settlement, filed the initial $100 million
class-action lawsuit days after the event, which stated that Ja
Rule and McFarland had known for months that their festival "was
dangerously underequipped and posed a serious danger to anyone in
attendance." McFarland faced a second class-action lawsuit two days
later.

A hearing to approve the settlement is set for May 13. [GN]

GB PREMIUM: Brunet Seeks Thread Representatives' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS BRUNET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GB PREMIUM OCTG SERVICES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00299 (D.N.M., April 1, 2021) brings this
collective and class action complaint against the Defendant seeking
all available relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a Thread
Representative, asserts that the Defendant improperly classified
him and other similarly situated Thread Representatives as
independent contractors. Despite routinely working in excess of 40
hours per week, the Defendant allegedly deprived them of overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per workweek.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Thread
Representatives, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, as
well as liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
compensation, litigation costs and expenses with reasonable
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

GB Premium OCTG Services LLC provides oilfield tubular connection
services to a wide range of domestic and international clients
since 1986. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361) 452-1279
          Fax: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Green Suit Rulings to Del. Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON
PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C.A. No.
N17C-03-242 EMD CCLD, in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware.

The Plaintiffs' case challenges GEICO's process for evaluating
personal injury protection ("PIP") claims submitted to Geico by its
insureds. Under Delaware law and pursuant to GEICO's contractual
obligations, after an insured submits a proof of loss, it must
repay all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred within two
years from the date of the accident. This includes compensation for
medical and hospital services. In evaluating PIP claims, GEICO
relies on the Rules that purportedly analyze all claims the same
way, regardless of the facts giving rise to the claim.

GEICO appeals to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware from
the portion of the Order denying GEICO's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Count III-Declaratory Judgment and granting
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count
III-Declaratory Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, by the Honorable Eric M. Davis, dated March 24, 2021;
Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of the
Superior Court, by the Honorable Davis, dated August 27, 2019 and
November 4, 2019; and Order denying in part GEICO's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint on
Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief based on Clark v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 131 A.3d 806 (Del. 2016) of the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware, by the Honorable Davis, dated April
24, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant Below-Appellant v. YVONNE GREEN and REHABILITATION
ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situations, Plaintiffs Below-Appellees, Case No. 107,2021, in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on April 13,
2021.[BN]

Defendant Below-Appellant GEICO General Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Paul A. Bradley, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Fox, Esq.
          MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC
          1201 North Market Street, Suite 900
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0288
          Telephone: (302) 425-5177
          Facsimile: (302) 425-0180
          E-mail: pab@maronmarvel.com
                  saf@maronmarvel.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Jackson Consumer Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00053, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:21-cv-00987-ECT-DTS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of written warranty under
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent omission, and violation of
the Virginia Consumer Protection Act by failing to disclose the
airbag defect on 2010 through 2011 Chevrolet Camaro vehicles.

General Motors, LLC is an American automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Charles L. Williams, Esq.
         WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
         7104 Mechanicsville Turnpike, Suite 204
         Mechanicsville, VA 23111
         Telephone: (804) 447-0307
         Facsimile: (804) 447-0367
         E-mail: cwilliams@williamsandskilling.com

                - and –

         Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
         GREENSTONE LAW PC
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9156
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

                - and –

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Marc L. Godino, Esq.
         Danielle L. Manning, 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: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                 mgodino@glancylaw.com
                 dmanning@glancylaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Search Advertising Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORGANIC PANACEAS, LLC, et al., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE, LLC and ALPHABET INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-02629 (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman
Act.

According to the complaint, Google is engaged in anticompetitive
practices in the markets for search advertising and general search
text advertising. As a result of Google's monopoly conduct, Google
now controls the advertising technology stack, comprising the
intermediary services between advertisers, which pay to place
digital advertisements, and publishers, who are paid to publish
those ads on their websites. Companies that wish to place or
publish online advertisements have little choice but to pay Google
for its advertising services. Google has and continues to abuse the
relevant markets for general search services by positioning and
displaying more favorably, on its general search results pages, its
own comparison-shopping service compared to those of the
competition, the suit adds.

Organic Panaceas, LLC is an organic products company located in New
Orleans, Louisiana.

Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Philip L. Gregory, Esq.
         GREGORY LAW GROUP
         1250 Godetia Drive
         Woodside, CA 94062
         Telephone: (650) 278-2957
         E-mail: pgregory@gregorylawgroup.com

                - and –

         Derriel C. McCorvey, Esq.
         McCORVEY LAW, LLC
         102 Versailles Blvd., Ste. 620
         Lafayette, LA 70501
         Telephone: (337) 291-2431
         Facsimile: (337) 291-2433
         E-mail: derriel@mccorveylaw.com

                - and –

         Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
         BRUNO & BRUNO, L.L.P.
         855 Baronne Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Telephone: (504) 564-7366
         Facsimile: (504) 581-1493
         E-mail: jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Illegal Gambling Apps
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
2:21-cv-00053-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., April 13, 2021) seeks to recover
money lost by the Plaintiff to illegal gambling pursuant to Section
87-1-5 of the Code of Mississippi.

The case arises from Google's profiting from alleged illegal
gambling machine games that it sells in its Google Play Store.
Allegedly, Google and its chief mobile software competitor, Apple,
both allow customers to purchase games that are no more or no less
than casino-style slot machines, casino style table games, and
other common gambling games.

The complaint further asserts that Mr. Smith downloaded and played
one of these casino-style gambling games. Prior to November of
2019, he downloaded Pop Slots from the Google Play Store. During
that month, he began purchasing coins through the app so he could
continue to play for a chance to win free coins that would enable
him to enjoy the game for a longer period of time. In the six
months prior to the filing of this complaint, he paid $13.22 to
Google for the privilege of continuing to play the illegal gambling
game, the suit adds.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to
Android app developers and Android users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
          WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1438 North State Street
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 624-4850
          Facsimile: (866) 900-4850
          E-mail: chris@weldylawfirm.com

               - and -

          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue
          South Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  dware@davisnorris.com

GOOGLE LLC: Profits From Illegal Gambling Games, Montoya Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA MONTOYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00339 (D.N.M., April 13, 2021) seeks to recover money
lost by the Plaintiff to illegal gambling pursuant to Section
44-5-1 of the New Mexico Statutes, 2018.

According to the complaint, Google promotes, enables, and profits
from games downloaded from its Google Play Store and played by
numerous New Mexico residents that constitute illegal gambling
under the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state
of New Mexico. Google and its chief mobile software competitor,
Apple, both allow customers to purchase games that are no more or
no less than casino-style slot machines, casino style table games,
and other common gambling games, the suit says.

Ms. Montoya downloaded and played three of these casino-style
gambling games. During the last three years, she has downloaded
House of Fun, Zito Box, and Jackpot Party from the Google Play
Store. Beginning on August 21, 2017, she began purchasing coins
through the app so she could continue to play for a chance to win
free coins that would enable her to enjoy the games for a longer
period of time. In the six months prior to the filing of this
complaint, she paid $784.44 to Google for the privilege of
continuing to play the illegal gambling games, added the suit.

Google LLC  is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to
Android app developers and Android users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY KENNEDY & IVES, PC  
          1000 2nd Street, N.W.
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244-1400
          Facsimile: (505) 244-1406
          E-mail: jpk@civilrightslaw.com

               - and -

          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  dware@davisnorris.com

H.C. WAINWRIGHT: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Prodanova Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DANIELA PRODANOVA, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff and PANTHERA
INVESTMENT FUND L.P., Lead Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. H.C.
WAINWRIGHT & CO., LLC; MARK VIKLUND; EDWARD D. SILVERA; OREN
LIVNAT, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-56048 (9th Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Defendant H.C. Wainwright & Co. ("HCW"), a specialty investment
bank, focuses on capital markets and equity research in the life
sciences and biotechnology industries. Under Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") regulations, HCW separates its
investment banking and research departments through "information
barriers reasonably designed to ensure that research analysts are
insulated from the review, pressure or oversight by persons engaged
in investment banking services activities." It also maintains a
compliance department to identify and effectively manage conflicts
of interest between the research and investment banking groups.

HCW has had a longstanding business relationship with MannKind
Corporation, a small but publicly traded biopharmaceuticals
company. MannKind develops and markets inhaled therapeutic products
for various diseases. Its first and only FDA-approved drug,
Afrezza, is a rapid-acting inhaled insulin used for adults with
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes.

On October 2, 2017, before trading opened, MannKind announced that
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved a favorable
labeling change for Afrezza. Over the next three days, MannKind's
stock price jumped from $2.17 to $4.96--an increase of 128%. Its
trading volume also increased more than 2,000%.

About a week later, on October 10, 2017, at 4:03 AM Pacific Time,
an investment analyst at HCW published a report called A Breath of
New Life with Afrezza Turnaround Story: Initiate with Buy and $7
Target. The Report explained that based on MannKind's publicly
available cash flow and debt data, it expected "near-term
recapitalization and dilution." The Report then set a $7 buy target
for MannKind shares. The Report also included a disclaimer stating
that HCW "will seek compensation from the companies mentioned in
this report for investment banking services within three months
following publication of the research report."

The day HCW published the Report, MannKind's stock price spiked up
26% to a closing price of $6.713 with a trading volume of 48.23
million shares. Later that night at 9:02 PM Pacific Time, MannKind
announced a registered direct offering of 10,166,600 shares of
common stock at $6 per share ("the Offering"). In its announcement,
MannKind also revealed that HCW would serve as the exclusive
placement agent for the Offering. The Placement Agency
Agreement--signed on the same day as the Report's
publication--stated that HCW would receive a cash fee equal to 5%
of the Offering's aggregate gross proceeds.

The very next day, MannKind's stock price--not
surprisingly--declined 18% to a closing price of $5.47 with a
trading volume of 33.6 million shares. As the Plaintiff points out,
investors who immediately bought MannKind shares after HCW issued
its $7 target price may have felt blindsided when that same bank
participated in a dilutive offering setting the stock price at $6.
After that, the stock price remained steady for about a week and
traded about 71 million shares. At the end of that week, MannKind's
stock price was still higher than it had been on the day before the
Report's publication.

Based on these events, Daniela Prodanova, an individual investor,
filed a putative securities class action lawsuit. The putative
class includes "all other persons or entities that purchased
MannKind securities between 4:03 AM Pacific Time on October 10,
2017 (7:03 AM Eastern Time) and 9:02 PM Pacific Time on October 10,
2017 (12:02 AM Eastern Time on October 11, 2017)." Under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4, the district court designated Panthera Investment
Fund L.P. as the lead plaintiff.

Panthera filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), alleging that
HCW, its Chief Executive Officer Mark Viklund, and the Report's
author Oren Livnat fraudulently sought to inflate the price of
MannKind shares before the Offering by issuing the Report. The FAC
specifically alleged that the defendants had violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. It also asserted a
claim against Viklund for control person liability in violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the FAC failed to allege falsity,
scienter, and loss causation. The district court granted this
motion without prejudice. It held that the FAC had satisfied the
pleading requirements for falsity but had not adequately alleged
scienter.

Panthera's Second Amendment Complaint ("SAC") fared no better.
Beyond naming HCW's Chief Operating Officer Edward D. Silvera as an
additional defendant, it largely repeated the same allegations as
the FAC. But Panthera did try to bolster its scienter allegations
by adding evidence from two witnesses--an industry expert named
Larry Kimmel and a confidential witness ("CW") who previously
worked in HCW's research department.

Mr. Kimmel provided evidence on industry custom--that investment
banks generally maintain compliance departments that have
visibility into both the research and investment banking groups to
check for conflicts of interest. The compliance department
typically learns of prospective banking engagements and places
those clients on a "watch list." Then, when an analyst prepares a
research report, compliance checks to ensure that the watch list
does not include the report's subject company. Kimmel had never
worked with HCW, but he stated that if HCW followed industry
standards, then HCW's watch list should have included MannKind, and
the compliance department should have discovered a conflict when it
received the Report for review.

The CW worked in HCW's research department from November 2016 to
August 2017. His employment with HCW, thus, ended before any of the
events here took place. The CW provided evidence that HCW's
compliance department generally follows industry standards for
checking conflicts of interest. But the CW could not provide any
specific information about how HCW approved the Report for
publication.

The Defendants filed another motion to dismiss, asserting that the
SAC failed to adequately plead scienter and loss causation. The
district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to
Livnat and without prejudice as to the remaining Defendants. It
again held that Panthera had not adequately alleged scienter, so it
did not reach the issue of loss causation. When Panthera chose not
to further amend its complaint, the district court entered final
judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.

The appeal followed, and the Appellate Court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
plaintiff to "state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud." As relevant here, the PSLRA extended Rule
9(b)'s particularity requirement to allegations of scienter. Thus,
to adequately plead scienter, a complaint must "state with
particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
defendant acted with the required state of mind."

Circuit Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee opines that the SAC's allegations
do not support a strong inference of scienter. He notes that the
SAC did not plead a plausible theory of the Defendants' motive. The
SAC alleges no facts to show that the Offering would not have sold
out but for the Report's publication and the later increase in
MannKind's share price and trading volume. He adds that the SAC did
not adequately allege facts with particularity to support a strong
inference of scienter for any of the Defendants.

When considering whether a complaint adequately pleads scienter,
the Appellate Court must review all the allegations holistically.
Based on its analysis, the Appellate Court concludes that the SAC
does not allege a strong inference of scienter. Panthera has not
established that an inference of intentional or deliberately
reckless conduct is as compelling as an inference of nonculpable
conduct. When considering the allegations as a whole, it is more
likely that HCW engaged in merely negligent conduct, Judge Lee
holds.

Judge Lee points out that he and the Panel based their conclusion
on the lack of a plausible motive, as well as the lack of
particularized facts showing any individual's knowledge or
deliberate recklessness about the Report's falsity at the time of
its publication. Given these deficiencies, the most plausible
inferences are that someone failed to put MannKind on the watch
list, failed to properly check the watch list, or failed to realize
that a conflict existed when approving the Report. As these
innocent explanations are more plausible, the Judge holds that the
district court properly dismissed the SAC for failure to adequately
plead scienter.

As the Appellate Court has concluded that the SAC does not
adequately plead a primary violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5
by any Defendant, its allegations under Section 20(a) necessarily
fail.

Therefore, the district court's order granting the Defendants'
motion to dismiss is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/29nhtzya from Leagle.com.

Ira M. Press (argued) -- ipress@kmllp.com -- Peter S. Linden --
plinden@kmllp.com -- and Angela M. Farren -- afarren@kmllp.com --
Kirby McInerney LLP, in New York City; Lionel Z. Glancy
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- and Robert V. Prongay
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, in Los
Angeles, California; James R. Swanson --
jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com -- Jason W. Burge --
jburge@fishmanhaygood.com -- and Kathryn J. Johnson, Fishman
Haygood LLP, in New Orleans, Louisiana; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jay S. Auslander (argued) -- jauslander@wilkauslander.com -- and
Adam Itzkowitz -- aitzkowitz@wilkauslander.com -- Wilk Auslander
LLP, in New York City; Paul B. Salvaty --
paul.salvaty@hoganlovells.com -- and Jordan D. Teti --
jordan.teti@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, in Los
Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees.


HARRIS INSURANCE: Faces Lamping Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vincent G. Harris
Insurance Agency. The case is captioned as Kaitlyn Lamping on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Vincent
G. Harris Insurance Agency, Case No. 34-2021-00297056-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 22, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

The Defendant operates as an insurance agency.[BN]

Plaintiffs Kaitlyn Lamping and Sherry Morrow, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245-5629
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

HARRISON CONTRACTING: Granados Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Granados, Victor F. Espinoza, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Harrison Contracting Co., Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00511-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., March 23, 2021) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to them were not paid regular wages,
and worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on March
2018, without being adequately compensated.

Defendant Harrison Construction is a commercial construction
company specializing in painting and related services. The
Defendant serves mainly the Northern and Middle Florida area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

HAYDAY INC: Brito Sues Over Discrimination Against Disabled
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. HAYDAY, INC., WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
EL PRADO, CORP., GOVERNMENT DISCOUNT, INC., and PARTY CITY
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21243-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
April 1, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons with disabilities against the
Defendant pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a person with disability due to his being
paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) which made him
substantially limited in major life activities, and requires the
use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Commercial
Property of the Defendants' businesses on or about February 25,
2021 and March 31, 2021 in order to avail himself of the goods and
services offered there, he has encountered multiple violations of
the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property and businesses located therein. Specifically,
the architectural designs of the Commercial Property and the
businesses located with the Commercial Property have each denied or
diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property
and have endangered his safety, he added.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons with
disabilities by denying them access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, and
businesses located within the Commercial Property.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief against the Defendants
including an order to make all readily achievable alterations to
the facilities, or to make such facilities readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, as well as attorneys'
fees, litigation costs and expenses, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate businesses at the Commercial
Property located at 3701 NW 7th Street, Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Tel: (305) 553-3464
          Fax: (305) 553-3031
          E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  bvirues@lawgmp.com
                  aquezada@lawgmp.com


HIGHLAND HOSPITAL: Denies Meal Periods & Rest Breaks, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMELIN STONE, AMANDA KUNW AR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. HIGHLAND HOSPITAL, a business entity
form unknown; ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, a Public Hospital Authority;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RG21092734 (Calif. Super.,
Alameda Cty., March 19, 2021) alleges that Defendants denied
Plaintiffs and class timely meal periods and rest breaks pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' denial of timely meal
periods and rest breaks included many instances in which Plaintiffs
went completely without meal periods and/or rest breaks for an
entire work shift.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as a class action
on behalf of "All current and former non exempt AHS employees who
were employed by AHS within four years prior to the commencement of
this action to the date of class certification and who held
positions as Nurses or Medical Assistants."

Highland Hospital is a public hospital in Alameda County, Oakland,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Y. Imai, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID Y. IMAI
          211 311 Bonita Drive
          Aptos, CA 95003
          Telephone: (831) 662-1706

HOME DEPOT: Reynosa Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SALVADOR REYNOSA, JR., NATALIE HEREDIA, and ALBERTO
MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. CVRI 2100213, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00640 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to maintain
required records, and failure to provide wages when due.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer
headquartered in Cobb County, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
         Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
         David J. Rashe, Esq.
         Mayra Negrete, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 830-0600
         Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
         E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
                 david.rashe@morganlewis.com
                 mayra.negrete@morganlewis.com

HOMELAND SECURITY: Protective Order Partly Granted in Al Oltro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AL OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his
official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S.
Crawford:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
        Dec. 15, 2020 Motion for Protective Order Concerning
        Asylum Information of Potential Preliminary-Injunction
        Class Members; and

   (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Leave to
        File a Sur-Reply.

The parties' dispute arises out of the District Court's October 30,
2020 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification of the
Preliminary Injunction.  In the October 30 Order, the District
Court addressed the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 that the Court ensure notice of the class action to
potential class members, and the Plaintiff's argument that the
Defendants should be required to identify potential class members
because they had greater and more ready access to information about
individuals potentially eligible for membership in the class.

The District Court ordered the Defendants to "review their own
records to aid in the identification of class members and share the
information in their custody regarding the identities of class
members with the Plaintiffs," and further to produce to the
Plaintiffs the already-generated "lists of aliens in ICE's custody
who received negative credible-fear determinations pursuant to the
Asylum Ban.  The District Court did not impose any limitations
regarding the scope of use or manner by which the information could
be used by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants now seek a protective order to govern the sharing of
potential class members' asylum information with the Plaintiffs.
As the Defendants describe it, their Motion seeks to "set
conditions governing the Plaintiffs' further use and treatment of"
the asylum information they have been ordered to produce, "so that
the Defendants and the Executive Office of Immigration Review can
share information with the Plaintiffs under the October 30 Order
while also ensuring that potential class members' asylum
information remains confidential."

Citing federal regulations that prohibit government officials from
sharing the contents of an asylum applicant's file and the
"sensitivity" of asylum information, defendants request an order
that provides that once the asylum information has been produced to
the Plaintiffs' counsel, further disclosure of the information be
limited to: (1) the asylum applicant; (2) attorneys who have
entered their appearance in the applicant's asylum proceedings; (3)
any individual to whom disclosure has been authorized by the
applicant in writing; and, (4) any individual to whom the parties
agree the information should be disclosed, provided that individual
signs a statement acknowledging their agreement with the terms of
the protective order.

The Defendants' proposal would also require the Plaintiffs' counsel
to maintain records of the asylum seekers' consent to
information-sharing, the appearance forms for any attorney with
whom asylum information was shared, and any third party's executed
agreement to be bound by the protective order.  Under the proposal,
these records would be produced to defendants or EOIR upon request,
or to the Court upon its order.

The Plaintiffs do not believe any protective order is necessary,
but do not object to one being entered to facilitate the exchange
of information.  They do object, however, to provisions (2) and (3)
and to the record-keeping provisions of the Defendants' proposal.

The parties confirmed at the March 24, 2021 hearing that to date,
the Defendants have not produced to the Plaintiffs any information
in response to the October 30 Order.  However, the Defendants
represented that they have been compiling "a master list of
potential class members," portions of which they could provide to
the Plaintiffs "fairly quickly" and which they are in the process
of supplementing with additional information regarding potential
class members' contact information and detention status.

First, Magistrate Judge Crawford notes that the District Court
ordered the Defendants to produce asylum information to the
Plaintiffs without restrictions or conditions.  She is not
persuaded by the Defendants' bare assertion that "there is no
reason that private parties with whom the government is sharing
asylum information should be exempt from regulatory requirements."
There is, in fact, ample reason.

For one, the District Court did not impose any such requirements
when it ordered defendants to produce the asylum information to the
Plaintiffs.  Further, the plain text of the regulations does not
constrain the treatment of asylum information by private actors.
The Magistrate Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that there is "no
basis in law or the October 30 Order" for the restrictions the
Defendants now seek to impose.  She is therefore not persuaded that
the Defendants have any authority to dictate how the Plaintiffs and
their counsel make use of the asylum information once it is
produced.

Second, Magistrate Judge Crawford finds the record-keeping
provisions of the Defendants' proposed protective order unnecessary
and intrusive.  At the hearing, the Defendants' counsel suggested
that such documentation may be needed if there were ever a claim
against the United States that the asylum seeker was harmed by the
disclosure of his or her asylum information.  The Magistrate Judge
concludes that the District Court's Oct. 30, 2020 Order requiring
the Defendants and EOIR to provide that information to the
Plaintiffs is sufficient documentation for this purpose.

Moreover, it is not clear why the government's potential (and
entirely speculative) liability for disclosing asylum information
justifies imposing upon the Plaintiffs' counsel a requirement to
obtain and maintain documentation related to potentially thousands
of class members.  Even more troubling is the Defendants' and
EOIR's position that they are entitled to review such documentation
upon nothing more than their mere demand.  The documentation would,
of course, reveal the Plaintiffs' counsel's efforts to locate and
communicate with their clients, and any other person with whom they
may have discussed the case.  The Magistrate Judge finds that
neither the Defendants nor EOIR is entitled to such an
extraordinary intrusion into the counsel's work product.

Third, the Defendants conflate their role and responsibilities with
those of the Plaintiffs' counsel, who owe a fiduciary duty to the
class -- including putative class members.  Magistrate Judge
Crawford holds that the Defendants' unwillingness to leave to the
Plaintiffs' counsel's professional judgment how best to locate,
identify, and communicate with members and potential members of the
class is both troubling and inexplicable.  She is confident that
the Plaintiffs' counsel can be trusted to make in-the-moment
decisions that are in the best interests of the class and its
members, without the need for close supervision by the Defendants
or the Court.

Fourth, notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, Magistrate Judge
Crawford agrees with the Defendants that much of the information
contained in an asylum seeker's file is likely to be sensitive, and
that some protection against unfettered disclosure of that
information is warranted.  She also agrees with the parties that
the Confidentiality Protective Order previously entered in the case
is not "tailored to the circumstances of sharing asylum information
from the government's records" and would too narrowly restrict
plaintiffs' and their counsel's use of asylum information to locate
and communicate with potential class members.  Accordingly, she
will enter a separate protective order to govern the Defendants'
production of asylum information to the Plaintiffs.

Finally, as noted, the Plaintiffs requested leave to file a
sur-reply, to further illuminate why the Defendants' proposed
protective order would hinder them from communicating with the
class members and fulfilling their responsibilities as the class
counsel.  Although she did not rely on the Plaintiffs' sur-reply in
resolving the Defendants' Motion, in the interest of creating a
complete record, Magistrate Judge Crawford grants the Plaintiffs'
Application.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Crawford grants in part
and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Confidentiality
Protective Order.  She will enter a separate protective order to
govern the production of asylum information.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Defendants will
produce to the Plaintiffs the master list of the potential class
members as referenced during the March 24, 2021 hearing.  They will
supplement the master list with any additional information in their
possession concerning potential class members, their contact
information, and detention status no later than 45 days from the
date of the Order.  The Defendants will also have an ongoing
obligation to supplement the list.

The Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application is granted.  The Clerk of the
Court is requested to docket the Plaintiffs' Proposed Sur-Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3skayhhs from Leagle.com.


HUMANA INC: Moore Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENA MOORE, TIMOTHY K. SWEENEY, RUSSEL A. HOHMAN, SUSAN M. SMITH
and VERONICA CARGILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUMANA INC., THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF HUMANA INC., THE HUMANA RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00232-RGJ (W.D. Ky.,
April 13, 2021) is a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409
and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
against the Humana Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciaries, which
include Humana Inc. and the Board of Directors of Humana Inc. and
its members during the Class Period and the Humana Retirement Plans
Committee and its members during the Class Period for breaches of
their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs assert that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's administrative and
recordkeeping costs.

The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment
of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the
suit adds.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan and which are the subject of the lawsuit.

Humana Inc. is a national provider of health insurance. Humana is
the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of
business in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Blair, Esq.
          KIRK LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 339 888 US 23 South
          Paintsville, KY 41240
          Telephone: (606) 297-5888
          Facsimile: (606) 297-5870  
          E-mail: Phillip.blair@kirklawfirm.net

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103  
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

IDAHO: Tucker Must Prove Defense System Has Structural Deficiencies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TRACY TUCKER, JASON SHARP, NAOMI MORLEY, and
JEREMY PAYNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. STATE OF IDAHO, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 46882 (Idaho), the Supreme Court
of Idaho, Boise, ruled that to obtain declaratory or injunctive
relief, the Plaintiffs-Appellants must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that Idaho's public defense system suffers from
widespread, persistent structural deficiencies that likely will
result in indigent defendants suffering actual or constructive
denials of counsel at critical stages of criminal proceedings.

The Defendants-Respondents are State of Idaho; Darrell G. Bolz, in
his official capacity as Chair of the Idaho State Public Defense
Commission; Eric Fredericksen, in his official capacity as a member
of the Idaho State Public Defense Commission; Paige Nolta, in her
official capacity as a member of the Idaho State Public Defense
Commission; Angela Barkell, in her official capacity as a member of
the Idaho State Public Defense Commission; Dan Dinning, in his
official capacity as a member of the Idaho State Public Defense
Commission; Jonathan Loschi, in his official capacity as a member
of the Idaho State Public Defense Commission; Sen. Chuck Winder, in
his official capacity as a member of the Idaho State Public Defense
Commission; Rep. Melissa Wintrow, in her official capacity as a
member of the Idaho State Public Defense Commission; and Hon. Linda
Copple Trout, in her official capacity as a member of the Idaho
State Public Defense Commission.

The case concerns a systemic challenge to Idaho's public defense
system and asks the Court to answer two overriding questions: (1)
what is the proper legal standard to be applied to the Plaintiffs'
claims at trial, and (2) what is the burden of the respective
parties going forward?

The Plaintiffs are indigent defendants represented in criminal
actions by attorneys provided through Idaho's public defense
system. They allege that numerous inadequacies in Idaho's public
defense system, as administered by the State and the Idaho Public
Defense Commission ("PDC") ("Respondents"), violate the rights of
the named plaintiffs, as well as those of similarly situated
criminal defendants across Idaho, under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of
the Idaho Constitution.

On March 19, 2019, the district court denied cross motions for
summary judgment, citing a lack of precedent as to the controlling
legal standard to be applied, and requested this appeal. On April
11, 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court granted the district court's
request for permissive appeal to determine the standard of review.

According to the Court's Opinion, the crux of the issue comes down
to how to properly evaluate the deficiencies in Idaho's public
defense systems alleged by the Appellants. In sum, the Appellants
insist that the view from 30,000 feet is sufficient, while the
Respondents demand that the district court examine this issue from
three feet away.

Background

In June 2015, four named plaintiffs--Tracy Tucker, Jason Sharp,
Naomi Morley, and Jeremy Payne ("Appellants")--filed suit in Ada
County on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated indigent
criminal defendants. They allege that Idaho's public defense system
violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution.
The Appellants seek equitable relief, including a declaration that
Idaho's public defense system is unconstitutional and an injunction
requiring Respondents to bring Idaho's public defense system into
constitutional compliance.

The suit named the State of Idaho, then-Governor C.L. "Butch"
Otter, and the seven members of the PDC (it now consists of nine
members) as defendants.

In January 2016, the district court held that the Appellants'
claims were not justiciable based on standing, ripeness, and
separation of powers and dismissed the complaint. On appeal to the
Idaho Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the claims
related to the Governor; however, the Court reversed the district
court and held that the remaining claims could proceed against the
State, as it bears ultimate responsibility for the public defense
system, and against the members of the PDC, as related to the
agency's rulemaking authority (Tucker v. State, 162 Idaho 11, 394
P.3d 54 (2017) ("Tucker I")).

The Court further held that the Appellant's claims did not
implicate Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its
case-by-case ineffective assistance of counsel analysis. The Court
went on to conclude that "Appellants satisfy the injury in fact
standard because the complaint alleged actual and constructive
denials of counsel at critical stages of the prosecution."

Following remand, the district court granted the Appellants' Motion
for Class Certification on January 17, 2018. The certified class is
defined as follows:

     All indigent persons who are now or who will be under
     formal charge before a state court in Idaho of having
     committed any offense, the penalty for which includes the
     possibility of confinement, incarceration, imprisonment, or
     detention in a correction facility (regardless of whether
     actually imposed) and who are unable to provide for the full
     payment of an attorney and all other necessary expenses of
     representation in defending against the charge.

In late 2018, both the Appellants and the Respondents filed cross
motions for summary judgment. On March 19, 2019, the district court
denied both motions and sua sponte authorized a permissive appeal
to the Court to determine the standard to be applied.

The Court granted permission to appeal on April 11, 2019, stating:
"The singular issue to be presented to the Court is, what is the
standard to be used in a lawsuit challenging the public defense
system for the State of Idaho? What is the burden of the respective
parties going forward?" The issue is one of first impression for
the Idaho Supreme Court.

The Appellants allege systemic deficiencies in Idaho's public
defense system resulting in unconstitutional denials of counsel,
and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the State
and the PDC. The Court has granted permissive appeal for the
purpose of setting forth the standard of proof the Appellants must
meet at trial to prove these allegations and obtain the relief they
are seeking.

In answering the questions upon which permissive appeal was
granted--what is the proper legal standard to be applied to the
Plaintiffs' claims at trial and what is the burden of the
respective parties going forward?--the Court holds as follows:

     To obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs
     must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Idaho's
     public defense system suffers from widespread, persistent
     structural deficiencies that likely will result in indigent
     defendants suffering actual or constructive denials of
     counsel at critical stages of criminal proceedings.

The Court says it interprets this in a manner consistent with the
applicable standard in a constitutional challenge to a public
defense system in which injunctive relief is sought, which is: "the
likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and the
inadequacy of remedies at law." While the Appellants must prove the
allegations of at least one of the named plaintiffs whose claims
formed the basis of standing, the Appellants do not otherwise need
to prove individual harm to prevail. Although other specific
instances of past or current individual harm are highly probative
of future risks of harm, and not to be discounted for their
persuasive weight, such proof is neither an express element of the
standard nor the only way to meet the standard. Lyons, 461 U.S. at
102.

Accordingly, the Court holds that structural evidence, such as
statistics and national standards, can also be probative of the
existence of systemic denials of counsel and may suffice, if the
trier of fact is persuaded by a preponderance of the total evidence
presented at trial.

Likewise, the Court holds that the Appellants need not establish
harm in each of Idaho's 44 counties to prevail. Again, while the
probative value of evidence demonstrating specific examples of
wide-spread deficiencies throughout the 44 counties (or even a
significant portion thereof) is not to be discounted for its
persuasive weight, such evidence is not required. The Appellants
may attempt to prove substantial harms to members of the certified
class are likely, based on structural deficiencies attributable to
the State and the PDC in the system as a whole.

The decision only sets forth the applicable standards by which the
respective sides must prove their cases--the Court has not dictated
how they must do so. As with all lawsuits, the responsibility
ultimately rests upon the skill of the attorneys involved to
strategically present their evidence in a manner they believe will
most effectively persuade the trier of fact.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2bh2cat5 from Leagle.com.

American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, in Boise,
Idaho; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, in New York;
Hogan Lovells US LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellants.
Elizabeth Lockwood -- elizabeth.lockwood@hoganlovells.com --
argued.

Lawrence G. Wasden -- AGWasden@ag.idaho.gov -- Idaho Attorney
General, in Boise, Idaho, for Respondents State of Idaho, Hon.
Linda Copple Trout, Darrel G. Bolz, Angela Barkell, Sen. Chuck
Winder, Rep. Melissa Wintrow and Dan Dinning. Leslie Hayes --
leslie.hayes@ag.idaho.gov -- argued.

Parsons, Behle & Latimer as Special Deputy Attorney General, in
Boise, Idaho, for Respondents Eric Don Fredericksen, Paige Nolta,
and Jonathan Loschi. Leslie Hayes argued.


INTRUSION INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Intrusion, Inc.
("Intrusion" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTZ) investors concerning
the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.

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

On April 14, 2021, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Intrusion's product, Shield,
"has no patents, certifications, or insurance, which are all
essential for selling cybersecurity products" and that "Shield is
based on open-source data already available to the public." Thus,
the report stated that "Shield is a repackaging of pre-existing
technology rather than an innovative offering." Moreover, the
report alleged that the claims that Shield "stopp[ed] a total of
77,539,801 cyberthreats from 805,110 uniquely malicious entities .
. . in the 90-day beta program" were "outlandish," leading White
Diamond to question "[h]ow have these companies been able to
function so far, as they've been attacked many times per minute by
ransomware, malware, data theft, phishing and DDoS attacks?"

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.50, or 16%, to
close at $23.75 per share on April 14, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Intrusion should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                           About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brown Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KATHLEEN BROWN f/k/a KATHLEEN SEMOLA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON
CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-07881 (D.N.J., April 1, 2021) challenges the Defendant's
alleged abusive debt collection practices that violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff
collection letters on or about January 20, 2021 and on or about
February 24, 2021 in an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged
debt incurred to Verizon Wireless. Purportedly, Verizon contracted
with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt although its status
as of December 2015 was paid and closed as reported by Verizon
Wireless on the Plaintiff's credit report. The Plaintiff asserts
that both collection letters have failed to advise her that by
making a payment on the Verizon Obligation, the Plaintiff would
restart the statute of limitations, thereby, allowing her to be
sued on the Verizon Obligation once again. The Defendant has also
failed to send the Plaintiff a written notice, which contains any
of the information required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, after both
collection letters were sent, the suit adds.

Due to the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and false debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has suffered damages. Thus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff brings this class action complaint seeking to recover
damages from the Defendant, including statutory damages, actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


JOHN O'DONNELL: Faces Bellisario Suit Over Deceptive GAP Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------------
TISHA BELLISARIO v. JOHN P. O'DONNELL, Case No. CV-21-945372 (Ohio
Com. Pleas, March 22, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated alleging that Defendant Fiat of
Strongsville (FOS) engaged in deceptive and fraudulent conduct,
breach of contract and theft of consumer funds as part of its
practice of selling GAP insurance and Canadian vehicles, not
covered by manufacturer warranties to Ohio consumers.

The suit seeks to redress a persistent pattern and practice of
wrongdoing perpetrated by FOS against Ohio consumers. As part of
its ordinary and customary practice, FOS induces unwitting Ohio
consumers to purchase vehicles that are within the duration of the
manufacturer's warranty coverage and thus purportedly covered by
the manufacturer's warranty.

Through this Class Complaint, Ms. Bellisario seeks to reform FOS's
pattern of deceptive and unconscionable practices, and obtain for
her and similarly situated Ohio consumers, legal and equitable
relief, including actual (economic and noneconomic) damages,
statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Defendant FOS is an Ohio Corporation in the business of selling
and/or leasing motor vehicles and related products, including GAP
Addendum contracts to Ohio consumers. FOS is a "supplier" or
"person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer
transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the
consumer."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER, LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; KPA Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay the
action titled KPA PROMOTION & AWARDS, INC., and ABOVE & BEYOND
PRESCHOOL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 3910 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs KPA Promotion & Awards, Inc. ("KPA") and Above & Beyond
Preschool, LLC ("A&B") are banking customers of Defendants JPMorgan
Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (together, "Chase") who
applied for federally guaranteed Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP") loans from Chase. KPA ultimately received a loan, which was
backdated by several weeks while A&B's application was denied.

In their complaint, filed on May 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs allege
that Chase improperly favored commercial and private banking
clients over its small business banking customers and assert
various claims under the New York General Business Law Sections
349, 350 for deceptive practices and false advertising and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs
further raise claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary
duty, and negligence.

The Arbitration Provisions

The Plaintiffs are two businesses primarily located in Florida. KPA
offers promotional and logoed products, and A&B is a preschool.
Years before the pandemic, both Plaintiffs opened banking accounts
with Chase. Upon opening their accounts, the Plaintiffs were
required to sign a "signature card," wherein they agreed to be
bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Deposit Account
Agreement ("DAA") as amended from time to time.

The DAA contained an arbitration provision. The DAA also contains a
right to opt out of arbitration if Chase is notified within 60 days
of the opening of an account, but neither KPA nor A&B exercised
that option.

In addition, when the Plaintiffs initially opened accounts on
Chase's online system ("Online Portal") connected to their banking
accounts, they confirmed their acceptance of Chase's Online
Services Agreement ("Online Agreement").

The Plaintiffs' Applications for PPP Funding

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the accompanying financial
downturn experienced by millions of businesses, Congress passed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act in
March of 2020. The CARES Act created a number of economic programs
to provide financial assistance to Americans, including $349
billion to the U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA") to make
forgivable loans available through the PPP to qualifying businesses
harmed by the pandemic. While the loans were guaranteed by the
federal government, businesses had to apply through private banks.
Chase was an approved SBA lender and as such was required to
"service and liquidate all covered loans made under the PPP in
accordance with PPP Loan Program Requirements," which included
processing applications for PPP loans on a first-come, first-served
basis.

Lenders of PPP loans earned varying percentages of origination fees
based on the amount of the loan: 5% on loans not more than
$350,000; 3% on loans between $350,000 and $2 million; and 1% on
loans over $2 million.

The Plaintiffs allege that in violation of the PPP Loan Program
Requirements, and contrary to its own representations, Chase gave
preferential treatment to commercial and private banking clients
over its small business banking customers in order to profit from
the higher origination fees obtainable from larger loans. Small
business banking customers had to apply for loans through Chase's
Online Portal and then had to wait for a call from Chase's
representatives for further assistance. In contrast, private or
commercial banking customers were assigned to employees who
provided them with "concierge treatment," allowing them to bypass
the queue set up for small business banking customers.

The Plaintiffs submitted applications for PPP loans with Chase
using the Online Portal. KPA's application was approved, and the
loan funds were deposited into KPA's account on April 30, 2020,
though Chase backdated the deposited funds to April 7, 2020,
thereby, allegedly limiting the amount of time by which KPA could
use the funds by 23 days. A&B submitted two applications, which
were both denied.

Discussion

Chase has established (and the Plaintiffs do not contest) that they
agreed to the terms of the DAA and Online Agreement when they
opened accounts with Chase. The Plaintiffs do not suggest any
argument whatsoever that they were in fact not bound by the terms
of the arbitration clauses at the time periods relevant to this
action. Rather, the Plaintiffs primarily argue that claims arising
from Chase's lending practices, and particularly claims arising out
of Chase's PPP lending practices, fall outside the scope of the
arbitration provisions of the DAA and Online Agreement.

However, the resolution of this issue is for the arbitrator because
here, there is "clear and unmistakable evidence . . . that the
parties intended that the question of arbitrability will be decided
by the arbitrator," District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald opines,
citing Contec Corp. v. Remote Solution, Co., 398 F.3d at 208 (2d
Cir. 2005). Both the DAA and Online Agreement state that a party
must submit its claim to either Judicial Arbitration and Mediations
Services ("JAMS") or the American Arbitrations Association ("AAA")
and that their procedures will apply. Those procedures in turn
grant the arbitrator the power to rule on his or her own
jurisdiction and the arbitrability of the issues presented.

Not only do the referrals to AAA and JAMS compel the result reached
but, independently, the language of the arbitration provisions does
as well, Judge Buchwald notes. Specifically, the Online Agreement
expressly provides that any claim "regarding the applicability of
this arbitration clause" is subject to arbitration, and both the
DAA and Online Agreement define claims subject to arbitration to
include "any" claims or disputes, whether arising in the present or
future, related "in any way" to the agreements.

Accordingly, Judge Buchwald holds, the Plaintiffs must, in the
first instance, raise their objections concerning the scope of the
arbitration provisions before the arbitrator.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Chase's motion to compel arbitration and stay
this action is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 34 and to mark this case
as stayed. Chase is directed to file a brief letter every 60 days
from the date of this Order informing the Court of the status of
the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vh42pyw5 from
Leagle.com.


JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 500, WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02583 (N.D.
Cal., April 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Kansas Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, alleges the suit.

Unified School District No. 500 is a public school district located
in Wyandotte County, Kansas.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Unlawful E-Cigarette Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Monmouth County, New Jersey
v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP INC, ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC, JAMES
MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ
VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-06178-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., March 22, 2021) is
a class action complaint seeking injunctive relief, abatement, and
damages arising out of the injuries to their property, students,
and employees caused by the Defendants' unlawful sales of
e-cigarette.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, product design targets minors, especially teenagers,
and, along with unlawful sales, will increase the likelihood that
minors, like the students in their school will begin using
e-cigarettes and become addicted to the Defendants' e-cigarette
products and this will cause further harm to the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated.

Allegedly, the Manufacturer Defendants' marketing campaigns hooked
teens who had never tried traditional cigarettes on their
e-cigarette products. Since 2008, cigarette smoking among Illinois
high school seniors has decreased from 21% to 5% in 2018.
E-cigarette use by high school seniors is higher than cigarette use
was 10 years ago.

Between 2016 to 2018, e-cigarette use in Illinois increased from
18.4% to 26.7% among high school seniors, a 45% increase; a 15%
increase was seen among 8th grade students; and a 65% increase
among 10th grade students. E-cigarettes put youth at risk for
addiction and possibly worse asthma outcomes, yet almost 40% of
10th and 12th grade youth believe there is low or no risk of
negative health effects.

Plaintiff FRHSD, located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, is a
school district in New Jersey, serving more than 10,000 students in
Colts Neck Township, Englishtown, Farmingdale, Freehold Borough,
Freehold Township, Howell Township, Manalapan Township and Marlboro
Township. The district serves students in six high schools, from
ninth through twelfth grade. The top priority of FRHSD is the
safety and well-being of its students and staff. FRHSD's offices
are located at 11 Pine Street, Englishtown, Monmouth County, New
Jersey.

JUUL is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California. JUUL originally operated
under the name PAX Labs, Inc. In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs,
Inc. JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Weinkowitz, Esq.
          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
                  dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Industrial Way W, Building B
          Eatontown, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (732) 223-2200
          E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          HARKE PA
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          E-mail: LHarke@Harkepa.com

KADMON HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Kadmon Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KDMN)
securities between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Tadros v. Kadmon
Holdings, Inc., No. 21-cv-01797. The Kadmon Holdings class action
lawsuit charges Kadmon Holdings and certain of its executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Kadmon Holdings securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kadmon Holdings
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Kadmon Holdings class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Kadmon Holdings class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Kadmon Holdings class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Kadmon Holdings class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the Kadmon Holdings class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Kadmon Holdings
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
June 2, 2021.

Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the
treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. Kadmon's lead
product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an
orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated
coiled-coil kinase 2 ("ROCK2"), which is in Phase II clinical
development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease
("cGVHD"). On September 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the submission
of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment
of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). On November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the
FDA's acceptance of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had
assigned the NDA a Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target
action date of May 30, 2021.

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

On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA
and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021,
the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its
Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30,
2021." Kadmon advised investors that "[t]he FDA extended the PDUFA
date to allow time to review additional information submitted by
Kadmon in response to a recent FDA information request," and that
"[t]he submission of the additional information has been determined
by the FDA to constitute a major amendment to the NDA, resulting in
an extension of the PDUFA date by three months." On this news,
Kadmon's stock price fell more than 10%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]

KAWASAKI KISEN: Alban Antitrust Class Suit Removed to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JILL ALBAN, GRANT ALBAN, MARY ARNOLD, AL BAKER,
KATRINA BONAR, STEVEN BRUZONSKY, MONICA BUSHEY, MELINDA DENEAU,
JENNIFER DILLON, JEFFREY L. GANNON, PAMELA GOESSLING, THOMAS
GOESSLING, SHERYL HALEY, LESLEY DENISE HART, BRUCE HERTZ, MARIA
KOOKEN, ADAIR LARA, KORI LEHRKAMP, MICHAEL LEHRKAMP, JOHN LEVYA,
DANIEL MORRIS, JUDY A. REIBER, RICHARD TOMASKO, JOHN O'NEILL
JOHNSON TOYOTA, RUSH TRUCK CENTERS OF ARIZONA, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. KAWASAKI KISEN
KAISHA, LTD., "K" LINE AMERICA, INC., and THEIR AFFILIATES, Case
No. MER-L-000431-21, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-08852 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract
related to the purported settlement of a prior case, In re Vehicle
Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation.

John O'Neill Johnson Toyota is a Toyota automobile dealer in
Meridian, Mississippi.

Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc. is a truck dealer in Tolleson,
Arizona.

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. is a transportation company based in
Tokyo, Japan.

"K" Line America, Inc. is an ocean transportation company, with its
principal place of business located at 4860 Cox Road, Suite 300,
Glen Allen, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Christopher L. Weiss, Esq.
         Russell T. Brown., Esq.
         FERRO LABELLA & WEISS L.L.C.
         The Landmark Building
         27 Warren Street, Suite 201
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 489-9110
         Facsimile: (201) 489-5653
         E-mail: cweiss@ferrolabella.com
                 rbrown@ferrolabella.com

                  - and –

         Jeremy Calsyn, Esq.
         Mark W. Nelson, Esq.
         CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
         2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20037
         Telephone: (202) 974-1622
         Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
         E-mail: jcalsyn@cgsh.com
                 mnelson@cgsh.com

KEMPER CORPORATION: Faces Aguallo Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRMA CARRERA AGUALLO, DROR HERTZ, and KELVIN HOLMES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
KEMPER CORPORATION and INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2021) is an action as a
result of the Defendants' failure to protect its current or former
employees' and customers' personally identifiable information
("PII").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that hackers obtained
information from the Defendants and its subsidiaries including PII
of thousands of its current or former employees and customers,
including, but not limited to, their names, addresses, Social
Security Numbers, driver's license numbers, medical leave
information, and workers' compensation claim information.

Allegedly, not only did hackers steal the PII of the Plaintiffs and
class members, criminals have already used the PII to attempt to
steal certain of the Plaintiffs' and class members' identities.
Hackers accessed and then either used or offered for sale the
unencrypted, unredacted, stolen PII to criminals. This stolen PII
has great value to hackers. Because of the Defendants' Data Breach,
customers' PII is still available and may be for sale on the dark
web for criminals to access and abuse. The Defendants' customers
and employees face a lifetime risk of identity theft, the suit
says.

Kemper Corporation is a financial services provider. The Company
specializes in property and casualty, life, health, and accident
insurance products and services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               -and-

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: byrd@whafh.com

               -and-

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  lguillon@justice4you.com



KROGER CO: Faces Abrams Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
ALBERT ABRAMS, SHELLY CHURCH, KEVIN CORBETT, EULA DOUGLAS, DELILAH
PARKER, and MARTIN PINALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00240-MRB (S.D. Ohio, April 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information that the Defendant
stored on and shared using its vendor's "legacy" file sharing
platform, including names, contact information, email addresses,
phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, and salary information (collectively, "personally
identifiable information" or "PII"), as well as benefits
information from the Kroger Employee Health Plan, information to
process insurance claims, prescription information such as
prescription number, prescribing doctor, medications names and
dates, medical history, and/or clinical services (collectively,
"personal health information" or "PHI").

According to the complaint, on January 22, 2021, the Defendant
learned that an unauthorized actor breached Defendant's vendor's
"legacy" file sharing platform, which the Defendant had used to
store and share the PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class Members
(the "Data Breach"). The exposed PII and PHI of Plaintiffs and
Class Members can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and
then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII and PHI to
criminals. The Plaintiffs and Class Members face a lifetime risk of
identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social
Security numbers, the suit says.

This PII and PHI was compromised due to the Defendant's alleged
negligent and careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class Members.

The Kroger Co. operates supermarkets and convenience stores in the
United States. The Company also manufactures and processes some of
the foods that its supermarkets sell. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 East Fourth Street, 4 th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com
                  rswayne@strausstroy.com

               -and-

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

               -and-

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Brury Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSE BRURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORP.; STEPHEN S. BURNS;
RICH SCHMIDT; and JULIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00760 (N.D. Ohio, April 8, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company") securities
between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue damages pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and 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 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.

On March 17, 201, after trading had closed, the Company held an
earnings call on which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown had
received an inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although Lordstown
also issued a press release and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth
quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading closed
on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the existence of
the SEC inquiry in those filings. On this news, the stock fell
approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading, the suit adds.

Lordstown Motors Corp. designs and manufactures electric vehicles.
The Company offers electric light duty trucks, pickup trucks, and
other vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wagoner, Esq.
          ROBERT J. WAGONER CO., L.L.C.
          107 W. Johnstown Road
          Gahanna, Ohio 43230
          Telephone: (614) 796-4110
          Facsimile: (614) 796-4111
          E-mail: bob@wagonerlawoffice.com

               -and-

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE)
("Lordstown" or the "Company") f/k/a DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.
(NASDAQ: DPHC) ("DiamondPeak") on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's stock between August 3, 2020 and March 17,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lordstown stockholders who purchased or acquired DPHC or RIDE
securities prior to September 21, 2020 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or
by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/xl-fleet-corp/, for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.

According to the complaint, on March 12, 2021, 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 were "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.
Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $2.93 per
share, or over 16% in value, to close on March 12, 2021 at $14.78
per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on March 17, 2021, the Company held an earnings call during
which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown had received an
inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although Lordstown also issued a
press release and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results after trading closed on March 17, 2021,
the Company failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in
those filings. Following this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell an additional $2.08 per share, or over 13% in value, to close
on March 18, 2021 at $13.01 per share, again on heavy trading
volume.

Lordstown investors who purchased or acquired DPHC or RIDE
securities prior to September 21, 2020 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC for additional information about this action and
their legal rights and options.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Lordstown
Motors Corp. for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 3,
2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lordstown's supposed orders were in fact
non-binding. Many of the customers who made these purported
pre-orders either could not afford the vehicles, or would not have
need of the Company's Endurance truck. The Company is not "on
track" to enter production of the Endurance in September 2021. In
fact, the first test run of the vehicle resulted in it being
engulfed in fire. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Lordstown,
investors suffered damages.

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

URL : http://www.schallfirm.com

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

LOUISIANA PHS: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, Spillers Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICKIE SPILLERS v. LOUISIANA PHS, LLC, and PROVIDER HEALTH
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762 (W.D. La., March 22, 2021) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging that the Defendants Louisiana PHS and Provider
Health Services failed to pay wages and used unlawful fines and
penalties to deny these wages.

This case also arises from the longstanding policies and practices
in place at the long-term care facilities owned, operated, and
managed by Defendants in the Western District of Louisiana and
throughout the State of Louisiana, which result in non-exempt
workers like Ms. Spillers working far in excess of 40 hours per
work week, and then being denied wages and overtime compensation
owed to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana
Wage Payment Act.

Ms. Spillers, a Nurse Practitioner, is a front-line worker and was
treating elderly patients in long-term care facilities during the
COVID-19 pandemic, despite the risk to her own health she faced
while caring for this vulnerable population.

Ms. Spillers brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former Nurse Practitioners who have
worked at the long-term care facilities as employees of the
Defendants and who elect to opt-in to this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Rose Denson, Esq.
          Justine G. Daniel, Esq.
          CASEY DENSON LAW, LLC
          4601 Dryades Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Telephone: (504) 224-0110
          Facsimile: (504) 534-3380
          E-mail: cdenson@caseydensonlaw.com
                  jdaniel@caseydensonlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          2725 Lapeyrouse St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 588-2700
          Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
          E-mail: : kcb@kennethbordes.com

LPS SERVICES: Court Proposes Class Definition in Alleman FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sasha Alleman v. LPS
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04830-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order proposing the following
definition:

   "All present and former full-time, hourly security officers
   employed by the Defendant who, from September 15, 2017, to the
   present, worked at least 40 hours in any given work week and
   were forced to arrive at least ten minutes prior to a scheduled

   shift during that work week but were not paid overtime for the
   early arrival."

The Court said, "The class definition as proposed by the Plaintiff
is defective in multiple respects. Again, Plaintiff proposes to
certify the following class:

   "All present and former full-time hourly security officers, and

   those with similar duties but other titles, employed by
   Defendant during the period three years preceding the
   commencement of this action through its final disposition."

First, this definition defines eligible class members by their
duties rather than by their subjection to the Early Arrival Policy.
Only the Early Arrival Policy is challenged here, and members of
the class must have been subjected to that policy. Further, the
proposed definition erroneously includes employees who were paid
for time spent pursuant to the Early Arrival Policy. Additionally,
without allegations or supporting declarations that the Early
Arrival Policy applied to employees other than security officers,
the Court declines to certify a class of all hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant. The definition must be limited to those
employees subjected to the Early Arrival Policy. Finally, as the
claims brought in this suit involve claims for overtime, only those
employees who worked at least forty hours in a given workweek are
eligible to be included in the class."

The Plaintiff sues LPS Services under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and analogous state laws for failure to properly pay
overtime wages.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that
provides professional security services in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida. The Defendant employed
Plaintiff in Belmont County, Ohio. The Plaintiff primarily provided
security at oilfield sites located in Jacobsburg, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uWYPEj at no extra charge.[CC]

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Faces Walker Suit Over Marketing of OxyContin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALKER COUNTY, ALABAMA, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of
Persons Similarly Situated, and the CITY OF JASPER, ALABAMA,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated
v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED
STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C, Case No.
6:21-cv-00425-LSC (N.D. Ala. March 22, 2021) seeks to recover
damages from the Defendants and to eliminate the hazard to public
health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the
nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that has been spent,
or will be spent, because of the Defendants' conduct in fueling the
epidemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of the dangers of
opioids, and of Purdue's prior misconduct, but nonetheless advised
Purdue to improperly market and sell OxyContin.

The Plaintiffs provide essential services for their citizens and
residents, including law enforcement, emergency medical assistance,
services for families and children, public assistance, public
welfare, and other care and services for the health, safety and
welfare of their citizens and residents. The rising numbers of
people addicted to opioids have led to significantly increased
costs, as well as a dramatic increase of social problems,
including, but not limited to, drug abuse and the commission of
criminal acts to obtain opioids.

Opioids include brand-name drugs like Oxycontin and Percocet, as
well as generic drugs like oxycodone and hydrocodone. These drugs
are derived from or possess properties similar to opium and heroin,
and, as such, they are highly addictive and dangerous.

Opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the
widespread abuse of opioids has resulted in a national epidemic of
opioid overdose deaths and addictions. The crisis arose from opioid
manufacturers' (such as Purdue Pharma) deliberately deceptive
marketing strategy to expand opioid use. Defendants played an
integral role in creating and deepening the opioid crisis.

The parties in this case include a county and city in Alabama that
have been damaged and continue to be damaged by the Defendants'
conduct.

McKinsey is a worldwide management consultant company. From
approximately 2004-2019, McKinsey provided consulting services to
Purdue Pharma L.P., working to maximize sales of OxyContin and
knowingly perpetuating the opioid crisis. McKinsey has also
provided related consulting services to other manufacturers of
opioids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Friedman, Esq.
          Matt Conn, Esq.
          Rodney Dillard, II, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO & ZULANAS, P.C.
          3800 Corporate Woods Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                  mconn@friedman-lawyers.com
                  rdillard@friedman-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Eddie Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, FIKES & BRAKEFIELD
          1816 3rd Avenue
          Jasper, AL 35501
          E-mail: ejackson@jacksonandfikes.com

MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Murdock Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBIN MURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and all aggrieved California resident
employees, Plaintiff v. MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. CIV SB 2027201, 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 April 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00657 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay
waiting-time penalties, failure to pay all wages for off-the-clock
work, failure to indemnify employee work expenses and losses, and
civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
Attorney's General Act.

McLane/Suneast, Inc., doing business as McLane Company, Inc.,
offers food services. The Company provides its services to grocery
stores, convenience stores, mass merchants, warehouse clubs, and
drug stores throughout the United States.[BN]

Defendant McLane/Suneast, Inc. is represented by:

          David A. Wimmer, Esq.
          Emily G. Camastra, Esq.
          SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW & WIMMER
          A Law Corporation
          9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 828
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 288-3980
          Facsimile: (310) 733-1727
          E-mail: dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com
                  ecamastra@swerdlowlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210  
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                  ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
          E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com

MECHANICAL SERVICE: Perez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROMEO IXCOY PEREZ and ROMEO SONTAY, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. MECHANICAL SERVICE CORP. OF NEW YORK
(D/B/A MECHANICAL SERVICE CORP. OF NEW YORK), RALPH DEROSE, and
DOMENICK DEROSE, Case No. 1:21-cv-02467 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York
Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of this action as a collective
action on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other
similarly situated employees and former employees of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that they were employed as a driver and HVAC
maintenance workers. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, the Plaintiffs add.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a heating, ventilation and
air conditioning and maintenance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

MEDFORD, MA: Fails to Pay OT to School Custodians, Howard Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HOWARD, JOHN BYRNE, STEVEN SILVIO, MIKE FORD, and ALL THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CITY OF MEDFORD, Case No. 1:21-cv-10497-IT
(D. Mass., March 23, 2021) alleges that Medford does not make a
proper regular rate calculation, thus it does not pay the Fair
Labor Standards Act overtime due to Plaintiffs in the pay periods
in which they earn it.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's violation of the law
has harmed injured and damaged the Plaintiffs. Defendant Medford's
employment of Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees is
subject to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are employed as school custodians by the Defendant
in the Medford Public Schools.

The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees have been
represented in collective bargaining by Teamsters, Local 25, and
the terms and conditions of their employment, including their hours
of work, wages for straight time work, and wages for work performed
outside their regularly scheduled hours of work, have been
established by collective bargaining, and set forth in duly
bargained for collective bargaining agreements.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
          William T. Harrington, Esq.
          HARRINGTON & RICE, P.C.
          25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 200
          Braintree, MA 02184
          Telephone: (781) 964-8377
          E-mail: dwr@harringtonrice.com
                  wth@harringtonrice.com

MEMPHIS, TN: Victims Seek Lawsuit for Mishandling of Rape Kits
--------------------------------------------------------------
fox13memphis.com reports that thousands of rape victims in Memphis
who blame the City for the botched handling of their rape kits may
soon get their day in court.

A judge could make their legal challenge a class action lawsuit.

For now, many of them are known collectively in court by one name.

"We are the Jane Does," said Valencia Woodin, who gave FOX13
permission to use her name as she talked about an investigation
into a 2013 case.

"They hadn't even looked at the rape kit," Woodin said. "They had
not looked at the cameras when the guy barged into the room."

Many rape survivors now want to join the current lawsuit against
the City of Memphis for the way the police department disregarded
their rape kits.

12,000 kits were discovered in storage, seemingly forgotten.

Terrilyn Blockman said she thought her case certainly was.

"Nobody ever called me," Blockman said. "I never heard from
anybody. My kit was never tested. I never knew if I had a kit."

To get their cases before a judge, their attorneys want a current
lawsuit involving three women to become a class-action lawsuit.

They argued it was time to certify the case.

"This case will affect the 12,000 victims whose kits were untested,
if the judge agrees," said Daniel Lofton, an attorney who
represents the three women.

The plantiffs' lawyers are seeking $10 million in damages.

Lawyers representing the City of Memphis argue the statute of
limitations has run out. In other words, they said it's too late to
bring in new victims.

"The City made its announcement in October of (20)13," Lofton said.
"Our suit was filed in August of 2013."

Woodin told FOX13 someone has to be held responsible. [GN]

MILL-RUN TOURS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Macuku Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDITA MACUKU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MILL-RUN TOURS, INC. d/b/a MILL-RUN TOURS, and ISSAM
SAWAYA, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-02505 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 23, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premium pay owed to her pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for failure to provide proper wage
notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL.

The Plaintiff is a former Travel Professional and/or Travel Agent
at the New York City division of the Defendants' travel agency.
During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff allegedly received a
flat salary on a bi-weekly basis for all hours worked, which did
not compensate her the statutorily required minimum wage rates or
provide overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek.

Mill-Run Tours, Inc. is an active New York corporation doing
business as "New Mill-Run Tours" with a New York State Department
of State Process address and principal place of business at 424
Madison Avenue, Floor 12, New York. The Individual Defendant
maintains operational control over the Corporate Defendant by
actively being present at the Corporate Defendant's principal place
of business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.PeltonGraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of MultiPlan Corporation ("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill
Capital Corp. III. ("Churchill III" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN)
between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit MultiPlan Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

This class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose 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 MultiPlan'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 MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to
half in some cases; (d) as a result, MultiPlan was set to continue
to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased
competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the
Merger; (e) consequently, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued
revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through
pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of the
healthcare technology company HST for $140 million at a premium
price from a former MultiPlan executive only one month after the
Merger; and (f) as such, 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.

On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a research report titled "MultiPlan: Private
Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab." According to
the report, MultiPlan was in significant financial decline because
of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited from
excessively high healthcare costs.

On this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By
November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock
fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price
at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time
of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased MultiPlan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/multiplancorporation-mpln-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-366/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY O. ROBINSON and ANTHONY W. SPEARS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-2, et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 20-cv-10203-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D.
Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Troy O. Robinson and Anthony W. Spears bring the
proposed class action against 13 statutory trusts ("Defendants"),
alleging violations of Pennsylvania state law in connection with
the interest rates charged on student loans held by the trusts.

First Marblehead Corp. ("FMC") designs and markets student loan
programs and facilitates those programs for banks.  In 2001, FMC
acquired a loan processing facility run by The Education Resources
Institute, Inc. ("TERI"), as well as 75% of the facility's
employees.  FMC arranged and marketed student loans, and dealt
directly with borrowers, while TERI guaranteed those loans.

PNC Bank, N.A. ("PNC") is one of FMC's clients and is a national
bank regulated by the National Bank Act ("NBA"), 12 U.S.C. Section
1, et seq.  PNC and FMC entered into an agreement ("Note Purchase
Agreement") whereby PNC would sell FMC, or FMC's "designee
Purchaser Trust," certain loans.

Per the terms of the Note Purchase Agreement, PNC originated the
loans described therein, owned the loans "free and clear" and had
the right to transfer them, and warranted that the loans were "in
compliance with any applicable usury laws at the time made and as
of the time of its sale and assignment by PNC to FMC or a Purchaser
Trust."  In connection with the Note Purchase Agreement, FMC
created national collegiate student loan trusts to buy the loans
from PNC.  The trusts have no employees and no offices.  Once the
trusts purchased the loans, they obtained all right, title, and
interest in the loans, though FMC retained a residual interest in
the trusts.  The Defendants and FMC are not nationally chartered
banks and are therefore not subject to the NBA.

In 2006, Robinson took out a loan for $21,000, co-signed by Spears,
to help cover his tuition at the University of Phoenix.  PNC made
the loan, which was disbursed on March 29, 2006.  The credit
agreement between the Plaintiffs and PNC set out an annual interest
rate of 9.368% and indicated that the rate was variable and would
be adjusted quarterly.  Over time, the interest rate on the Loan
varied from a low of 6.580% to a high of over 9%.

The Loan was later assigned to one of the 13 trusts named as
Defendants in the dispute, the National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2006-2 ("NCT 2006-2 Trust").  FMC created the NCT 2006-2
Trust, which is not affiliated in any way with PNC.  After the Loan
was sold to the NCT 2006-2 Trust, PNC no longer had any involvement
with the Loan.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Feb. 3, 2020.  They bring
the following claims against the Defendants: unlawful interest in
violation of Pennsylvania law, 41 Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 201 (Count
One); breach of contract (Count Two); breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing (Count Three); and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
73 Pa. Stat. Ann. Sections 201-1, et seq. (Count Four).  In
addition, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, as
well as restitution, treble damages under the relevant statutes,
and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs' theory is that FMC structured loans through PNC,
thereby taking advantage of PNC's status as a nationally chartered
bank to avoid interest rate caps imposed by state usury laws.  If
PNC was not the true lender, under Section Plaintiffs' theory, then
the interest rate charged by the NCT 2006-2 Trust (which is not a
national bank) violated Pennsylvania law, which governs the Credit
Agreement and sets a maximum interest rate of 6% on loans of under
$50,000.

On April 30, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
which the Plaintiffs opposed.  The Defendants then filed a reply
brief.  On Nov. 20, 2020, the Defendants filed a notice of
supplemental authority, which led to additional briefing by both
parties.  In response to a request from the Court, the parties
submitted additional materials on April 1, 2021.

A. Whether Plaintiffs Have Standing as to All Defendants

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the
Plaintiffs lack standing as to all but the NCT 2006-2 Trust.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that, in the context of a class action, they
may represent other, unnamed plaintiffs who have been injured by
those trusts.

The Plaintiffs allege that after disbursement, the Loan was
immediately transferred to the NCT 2006-2 Trust, which has owned
the Loan since transfer.  As to the other trust Defendants, they
acknowledge that they did not harm them, but may have harmed other
purported class members.

Having alleged harm caused by the NCT 2006-2 Trust only, Judge
Burroughs opines that the Plaintiffs have established standing as
to the NCT 2006-2 Trust, but not as to the other trust Defendants.
Given that the Plaintiffs have alleged that only the NCT 2006-2
Trust caused them harm, their claims against the remaining 12 trust
Defendants are dismissed.

B. Whether Plaintiffs' Usury Claim Is Preempted by Federal Law

The Defendants' primary argument is that the Plaintiffs' state law
claims, particularly the claim regarding the violation of
Pennsylvania's usury law, are preempted by the NBA.  The Plaintiffs
disagree and maintain that the NCT 2006-2 Trust was the "true
lender" on the Loan and was not a national bank subject to
protection under the NBA.

Judge Burroughs explains that there are two doctrines at issue: The
"valid-when-made" doctrine and the "true lender" doctrine.  She
opines that even accepting the complaint's factual allegations as
true, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim that
the NCT 2006-2 Trust, in collecting interest payments, violated
Pennsylvania usury law where the Loan was valid under federal law
when made.  And even assuming that the true lender doctrine were
applicable, in light of the Note Purchase Agreement and the Credit
Agreement, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that PNC
was not the true lender.

C. Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are
likewise preempted by federal law and otherwise fail.  First, the
Plaintiffs claim that the NCT 2006-2 Trust is in breach of the
Credit Agreement and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because it collected interest in excess of the rate allowed under
Pennsylvania law.

Judge Burroughs holds that the Credit Agreement, per its terms, is
governed by federal and Pennsylvania law, both of which, as
discussed above, allowed PNC to charge a rate of interest above 6%.
Further, the terms of the Credit Agreement clearly recite an
initial interest rate of over 9%.  The Plaintiffs cannot now claim
a breach based on that rate when it is allowed by law and
specifically set forth in the Loan documentation.  If they objected
to the interest rate, under these circumstances, that needed to be
negotiated prior to entering into the contract and not after the
Plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain.  The Plaintiffs
have thus not plausibly alleged that PNC or its assignee, the NCT
2006-2 Trust, breached the Credit Agreement or the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing based on the interest rate charged on the
Loan, or that they were harmed by any alleged breach.

Second, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "engaged in
unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade or
commerce prohibited by the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL").  The Defendants claim that
Plaintiffs have not pled the elements required to support a claim
under the UTPCPL.  In their opposition brief, the Plaintiffs focus
on the NCT 2006-2 Trust's imposition of an interest rate above the
Pennsylvania maximum as the basis for their UTPCPL claim.

The Judge opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that they
justifiably relied on any misrepresentation or action taken by the
NCT 2006-2 Trust.  The bulk of their complaint alleges actions
taken by PNC or FMC, not the NCT 2006-2 Trust.  Even if the Judge
were to interpret the deceptive or unfair acts alleged to be the
means by which PNC and FMC structured the loan transfers to the
trusts, neither PNC nor FMC is a party to the lawsuit.  The
Plaintiffs have therefore failed to plausibly allege justifiable
reliance on any act or practice taken by the NCT 2006-2 Trust.

Finally, because she concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted and/or fail to state a claim for relief, the Judge
likewise denied the Plaintiffs' requests for relief.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Burroughs granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3m7v2j3y from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL CREDIT: Himmel FDCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SCOTT HIMMEL, individually and as representative of
similarly situated persons v. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 2021-CH00963, was removed from the Cook County Circuit Court,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02008 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act by sending letters to the Plaintiff
that do not comply with the notice provisions contained therein.

National Credit Systems, Inc. is a company that provides debt
recovery services, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                 
         
         Jonathan D. Nusgart, Esq.
         SMITH & WEIK, LLC
         1011 Lake St., Suite 412
         Oak Park, IL 60301
         Telephone: (708) 386-9540
         Facsimile: (708) 386-7206
         E-mail: jnusgart@smithweiklaw.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Morandi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEN MORANDI and BLANCA
MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No.
2:19-cv-06334-MCS-MAA (C.D. Calif.),  the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order denying motion to certify class of:

   "All individuals in the state of California, who, during the
   applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee to Mr.
   Cooper for paying over the phone in connection with any
   residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by Mr. Cooper."

The Court said, "The Defendant identified several significant
issues requiring individual factual and legal determinations. The
Plaintiffs fail to show that these issues can be resolved on a
classwide basis or with common evidence. The Court determines that
Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show that common
questions of fact and law predominate over questions affecting
individual members of the proposed class. The predominance inquiry
is dispositive, so the Court declines to address the other
requirements of Rule 23."

This is a case brought under California's Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant
improperly charged them a convenience fee to make residential
mortgage payments by phone.

Nationstar offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32pMmwG at no extra charge.[CC]

NEIMAN MARCUS: Vicario Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as VICARIO v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS
GROUP LLC, Case No. 21-003529-CA-01, was removed from the Florida
11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami) on March 19, 2021.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-21065-RNS to the proceeding.

The nature of suit states Contract: Other. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Neiman Marcus is an American chain of luxury department stores
owned by the Neiman Marcus Group, headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Natali Wyson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-3300
          E-mail: nwyson@sidley.com

               - and -

          Sherril May Colombo, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7559
          Facsimile: (305) 675-7746
          E-mail: scolombo@littler.com

               - and -

          Yvette Ostolaza, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          2021 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 2000
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-3401
          E-mail: yvette.ostolaza@sidley.com

               - and -

          Lindsay Marie Alter, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PA
          333 SE 2nd Avenue No. 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: LAlter@littler.com

NEW ERA: Judge Sues Interstate Movers Holding His Goods Hostage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A retired New York judge and his wife say interstate movers
extorted them for thousands in cash, held their family's heirlooms
"hostage," and broke pricey belongings.

Their attorney Susan Chana Lask filed a federal class action
lawsuit for Judge Spinner and others in the Eastern District of New
York, entitled Spinner, Pompliano and Schwartz v New Era Relocation
LLC, Moving Solutions LLC, Gold Standard Relocation, et. al., #
20-CV-6288. Read the Complaint at
Class-Action-Interstate-Movers-Spinner.

Lask previously obtained a federal injunction ordering the movers
to return the property after they left the judge a voicemail
threatening to auction off his household goods. Read the injunction
at 1-14-21Order-TRO-GoldStd-NewEra

Judge Spinner's property was later found broken and moldy, in a
dirty, unsecured trailer on the side of the road in New Jersey.

"I was furious and my wife was equally enraged," said Judge
Spinner. "My late father-in-law used to put on white cotton gloves
to wind the grandfather clocks to make sure that nothing got dirty
or damaged. And these people treated them as if they were little
more than trash."

Photos before the move show beautiful furnishings and the
grandfather clock, but inside the trailer photos show an antique
grandfather clock smashed, a stained couch, and broken furniture.

"This class action will enforce Federal laws existing to protect
consumers from movers that take them for a ride, holding their
treasured goods hostage for cash ransoms, and more deplorable is
their preying on consumers during this already stressful pandemic,"
says Lask.

The complaint relies on the Carmack Amendment, a federal law that
prohibits hostage cases. Lask says the DOT has a "hostage unit" to
file complaints at
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/protect-your-move/file-a-complaint.

Other victims named in the complaint are Bill Pompliano and
Samantha Schwartz, who paid thousands of dollars only to have their
property stolen by the movers, the complaint alleges.

Pompliano's memory of his deceased son became a nightmare when Gold
Standard and New Era held his son's property for ransom then
destroyed it, including stealing a flat screen TV and electronics.
Schwartz' deceased father's property and her flat screen TV and
other items were also stolen after the movers held her property for
months.

The complaint says similar extortion and theft complaints by
customers are filed against the defendants to the DOT and BBB, and
there could be "thousands" of victims nationwide who deserve to be
monetarily compensated for their losses. [GN]


NEW YORK: Annucci & Fischer Dismissed as Defendants in Adams Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York dismissed Anthony J. Annucci and
Brian Fischer as defendants in the lawsuit titled LAMONT ADAMS,
Plaintiff v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI et al., Defendants, Case No.
9:21-CV-0033 (GLS/ML) (N.D.N.Y.).

Anthony J. Annucci was named the Acting Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision by
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo effective May 1, 2013.

Pro se Plaintiff Lamont Adams commenced the action by filing a
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. By
Decision and Order filed February 11, 2021, the Court dismissed the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 915A, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. In light of his pro se status, the Plaintiff was
afforded an opportunity to amend. The Plaintiff's amended complaint
is now before the Court for review.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff claimed that he pleaded guilty to
third degree attempted criminal possession of a weapon and was
sentenced to three years imprisonment, without a term of
post-release supervision (PRS). On September 3, 2004, the Plaintiff
was released from custody and placed under the jurisdiction of the
Division of Parole to serve a five year term of post-release
supervision. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Anthony J.
Annucci, Brian Fischer, and Terrence X. Tracy violated his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when they administratively
imposed PRS and a special condition of his parole; i.e., his
participation in a drug treatment program. The Plaintiff sought
compensatory damages.

In the February Order, upon review of the Complaint, the Court
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Annucci and Fischer,
without prejudice, for failure to plead personal involvement. The
Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims against Tracy were
sufficiently pleaded, but untimely. In light of his pro se status,
the Court provided the Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the
issue of timeliness prior to dismissal.

The amended complaint does not include any claims against Annucci
or Fischer and they have been omitted from the caption. The amended
pleading lacks new factual allegations against Defendants and the
allegations are substantially the same as those in the complaint
reviewed in the February Order. Additionally, the amended complaint
contains the same requests for relief. See id.

As discussed in the February Order, the Plaintiff's due process
claims accrued when he was "resentenced without any term of
post-release supervision." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims
accrued on May 1, 2009; and, absent tolling, the statute of
limitations expired on May 1, 2012.

The Plaintiff now alleges that the statute of limitations on his
Fourteenth Amendment claims should be tolled because he was part of
a class action lawsuit against Defendant Tracy and "withdrew with
the understanding" that the statute of limitations was "tolled for
all members of the putative class until class certification is
denied." The Plaintiff did not identify the class action with a
case number, venue, or caption. The only relevant information
provided is the date that the action was filed, May 11, 2011, and
the date that the "district court" certified the class, January 28,
2015. The Plaintiff asserts that he chose to "opt out" of the class
action on December 20, 2020.

Having reviewed the Defendant's litigation history on the Federal
Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Service, the action the Plaintiff references is Betances v.
Fischer, No. 1:11-CV-3200 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2011). Betances was
filed on May 11, 2011, and on January 28, 2015, the district court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) "on behalf of individuals
who were convicted of various crimes in New York State courts after
September 1, 1998; were sentenced to terms of incarceration but not
to terms of PRS; but were nonetheless subjected to enforcement by
defendants of PRS terms after the maximum expiration dates of their
determinate sentences after June 9, 2006."

In an order resolving the defendants' motion for summary judgment
in Betances, the district court addressed, among other issues, the
defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the
statute of limitations.

While tolling continues after class certification is granted,
"tolling ends when a plaintiff opts out of the class or a class
certification decision of the court definitively excludes that
plaintiff," Judge Sharpe notes, citing Choquette v. City of New
York, 839 F.Supp.2d 692, 699 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

Based upon the allegations in the amended complaint, the Plaintiff
was a class member in Betances and thus, the statute of limitation
on his Fourteenth Amendment claims tolled when the Betances action
was filed in May 2011 and resumed on December 20, 2020, when he
"opted out" of the class. In the February Order, the Court noted
that the Plaintiff delivered the complaint to prison authorities
for filing on December 20, 2020.

At this preliminary stage, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
facts to suggest that the action was timely filed, Judge Sharpe
holds. The Court directs Tracy to respond to the Plaintiff's
Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Court expresses no opinion as to
whether these claims can withstand a properly filed dispositive
motion.

Wherefore, it is ordered that the Clerk of the Court will attach
the Plaintiff's affidavit to the amended complaint.  The amended
complaint is accepted for filing and is deemed the operative
pleading. The Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims against Tracy
survive the Court's review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b). Defendants Annucci and Fischer are
dismissed as defendants.

Upon receipt of the documents required for service, the Clerk will
issue a summons and forward it, along with copies of the Amended
Complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the
Defendant. The Clerk will forward a copy of the summons and Amended
Complaint to the Office of the Attorney General, together with a
copy of this Decision and Order. A response to the amended
complaint be filed by defendant, or counsel, as provided for in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

All pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this action
must bear the case number assigned to this action and be filed with
the Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of
New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, at 100 S. Clinton St., in
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by a party to the
Court or the Clerk must be accompanied by a certificate showing
that a true and correct copy of same was served on all opposing
parties or their counsel. Any document received by the Clerk or the
Court which does not include a proper certificate of service will
be stricken from the docket. Plaintiff must comply with any
requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that are necessary
to maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule
7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions. The
Plaintiff is also required to promptly notify the Clerk's Office
and all parties or their counsel, in writing, of any change in his
address; their failure to do so will result in the dismissal of his
action.

The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of the Decision and Order
on the Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated April 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/72tw4r6y from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Lamont Adams, at Ulster Correctional Facility, in
Napanoch, New York, appears pro se.


NIANGUA R-V: Apple FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUSTINE APPLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T.J. BRANSFIELD and NIANGUA R-V SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Case No. 21WE-CC00004, was removed from the Thirtieth
Circuit Court of Missouri, Webster County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 6:21-cv-03082-MDH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Niangua R-V School District is a public school district located in
Niangua, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Kathryn B. Forster, Esq.
         Vincent D. Reese, Esq.
         Kelly R. Millaway, Esq.
         MICKES O'TOOLE, LLC
         12444 Powerscourt Drive, Ste. 400
         St. Louis, MO 63131
         Telephone: (314) 878-5600
         Facsimile: (314) 878-5607
         E-mail: kforster@mickesotoole.com
                 vreese@mickesotoole.com
                 kmillaway@mickesotoole.com

NOOM INC: Wins Bids to Toss Graham Suit Over Eavesdropping Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled AUDRA GRAHAM and STACY MOISE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NOOM, INC., and FULLSTORY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-06903-LB (N.D. Cal.).

Noom is a web application that helps its users lose weight and lead
healthier lifestyles. It uses FullStory's software (called "session
replay") to record what visitors are doing on the Noom website,
such as their keystrokes, mouse clicks, and page scrolling,
thereby, allowing a full picture of the user's website
interactions. Noom contends that the software improves its website
design and the user's experience.

The Plaintiffs--on behalf of a putative California class--claim
that FullStory is illegally wiretapping their communications with
Noom (and Noom is aiding and abetting that eavesdropping) in
violation of their right to privacy under California's Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Constitution.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint has three claims: (1)
wiretapping, in violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a); (2)
the sale of eavesdropping software, in violation of Cal. Penal Code
Section 635(a); and (3) invasion of privacy under California's
Constitution. The putative class is "all California residents who
visited Noom.com, and whose electronic communications were
intercepted or recorded by FullStory."

All parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction. The parties do
not dispute that there is subject-matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A).

Noom and FullStory moved to dismiss the case. The Court held a
hearing on April 8, 2021.

Noom and FullStory moved to dismiss the claims, in part on the
ground that FullStory--as Noom's vendor for analyzing its website
traffic--was a party to the communication (and not an
eavesdropper). FullStory also contends that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction because it has no forum-related conduct.

Judge Beeler opines that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead that
FullStory eavesdropped on their communications with Noom and
instead plead only that FullStory is Noom's vendor for software
services. They, thus, do not meet their prima facie burden to
establish specific jurisdiction over FullStory, and they do not
plausibly plead wiretapping in violation of California law.

Because the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead FullStory's
wiretapping, the Court dismisses the claims, holds that they did
not meet their prima facie burden to establish specific personal
jurisdiction over FullStory, and dismisses the claim for injunctive
relief.

The Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend within 21
days (except it dismisses Ms. Graham's claim for injunctive relief
with prejudice). Any amended complaint must attach a blackline
comparison between the current complaint and the amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/arpp2u7s from Leagle.com.


NURTURE INC: Baby Food Products Contain Heavy Metals, Wood Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN WOOD and BRITTIAN WARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NURTURE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03159-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranties,
unjust enrichment, and violations of Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act and the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer Sales Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's misrepresentation and failure
to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals in its baby food
sold throughout the United States. The Defendant advertises,
labels, and markets its baby food products as possessing certain
qualities, including premium and healthy qualities, that justify a
premium price. The Defendant's placement of heavy metals in its
products is a material fact that is knowingly withheld from
consumers, including the Plaintiffs. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged deceptive conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class were
injured when they paid the purchase price or a price premium for
the products that contain heavy metals.

Nurture, Inc. is a baby and toddler food company headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
         Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
         Blake E. Mattingly, Esq.
         STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY, PLLC
         12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
         Dallas, TX 75230
         Telephone: (972) 387-4040
         Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
         E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
                 stuart@swclaw.com
                 blake@swclaw.com

NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Class Settlement in Cobra Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE COBRA SEXUAL ENERGY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:13-cv-05942-AB-Ex (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birote, Jr.,
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the motion for final approval of the class action
settlement negotiated with the Defendant.

The motion is filed by Plaintiff Troy Lambert, individually and on
behalf of the Class.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Aug. 14, 2013.  His central
allegation in the case is that Cobra was falsely and unlawfully
marketed as an aphrodisiac drug.  He argued it violated both the
general statute requiring approval of new drugs, as well as 21
C.F.R. Section 310.528, a regulation dealing specifically with
"herbal aphrodisiac" products.  Because the FDCA does not provide
private plaintiffs standing to enforce drug laws, the Plaintiff
brought his claims under the laws of California.

The Plaintiff amended his Complaint on Oct. 25, 2013.  On Nov. 8,
2013, Nutraceutical moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff opposed on November 18, and Nutraceutical submitted
its reply brief on November 25.  On December 16, the Court granted
the motion in part, dismissing the claims "of class members who are
not California residents."  The Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint on Dec. 23, 2013.  Nutraceutical Answered the Second
Amended Complaint on Jan. 15, 2014.

The Parties completed substantial discovery prior to negotiating
the Settlement.  During an Aug. 28, 2020 Case Management Conference
following the denial of Nutraceutical's Rule 23(f) Petition, the
Court suggested that the Parties attend mediation.  On Sept. 8,
2020, the Parties attended mediation before the Honorable Jay C.
Gandhi (Ret.), which resulted in a complete, signed term sheet for
a class-wide settlement.

On Sept. 14, 2020, the Parties filed a Notice of Class Action
Settlement and Proposed Scheduling Order.  The Court set a briefing
schedule for the Parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval on
September 18.

The Parties filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement on Oct. 23, 2020.  On November 9, the Court granted the
Motion and issued a schedule for the Parties' Motion for Final
Approval, the Plaintiff's Fee Application, and the submission of
claims, opt-outs, and objections.

Lambert now moves the Court for Final Approval of a class-wide
Settlement Agreement.  The Class consists of: All individuals who
purchased Cobra Sexual Energy for personal or household use and not
for resale or distribution from Aug. 14, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2020.  A
total of 10,401 valid claims were made from the claim fund of
$100,000, resulting in a distribution of $9.61 per class member.
Funds remaining from returned or uncashed checks will be paid to
the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.  Nutraceutical will,
within 180 days of the Effective Date, discontinue the use of the
phrase "potency wood" and the word "virility" on the packaging of
Cobra.

In its Proposed Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and
Permanent Injunction, the Class asked the Court to order seven
changes to the label.  The settlement imposes two of those changes,
the "potency wood" and "virility" claims.  Of the remaining five
changes, the Plaintiff sought in his MSJ, three were made after the
case was filed.

Specifically, the "Powerful Men's Formula" "aphrodisiac plants" and
"perform your best" language were removed.  The Defendant
stipulates the case was a catalyst for the changes.  Thus, the
settlement secured five of the seven things the Plaintiff sought in
his summary judgment motion.  Of the remaining two claims, one was
a difficult challenge to the very name of the product, and the
other remains, but was toned down, from "intended to provide blood
flow" to "thought to provide blood flow."

Judge Birote finds that the Class has received the best notice
practicable and that the notice complies with due process
requirements.  No class member objected to the settlement, and only
one individual filed a request for exclusion.

The Class Counsel seeks $490,000 in fees and costs based on 2,635.4
hours of attorney work and 1,811.2 hours of paralegal, summer
associate, law clerk, and legal assistant work.  The Class
Counsel's lodestar, which is "presumptively reasonable," totals
$1,853,120.55.  Thus, the Class Counsel seek an amount
approximately 75% less than their lodestar.  Judge Birote finds
this amount reasonable.

The Class Counsel also seek a total of $47,373.15 in costs.  Judge
Birote has reviewed the Class Counsel's claimed costs.  The largest
expenses include initial class notice, expert witness fees, court
reporters and deposition transcripts, and printing costs related to
the appeal of class certification.  Judge Birote finds the claimed
costs were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,
rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.

The Class Representative Lambert also seeks an incentive award in
the amount of $10,000.  Judge Birote finds the requested incentive
award is appropriate, given the sensitive issues at play and highly
personal discovery and deposition topics.  Further, the Plaintiff
persevered through multiple appeals and has kept himself up to date
on the status of the case since its inception in 2013.

Judge Birote also finds that all relevant factors weigh in favor of
final approval of the Settlement.  Approval of the proposed
Settlement is especially appropriate in complex class actions such
as this one where the parties have reached a voluntary conciliation
through prolonged, non-collusive, arms-length negotiations after
extensive briefing of the issues and at the close of considerable
discovery.  Accordingly, the Judge issued final approval of the
Settlement.

The Parties are directed to implement the Settlement according to
its terms and conditions.

The following individual filed a timely request for exclusion, and
is not bound by the Settlement nor eligible to make a claim: Marla
Micks 15630 Frances Lane, Orland Park, IL 60462.

The claims against Defendant Nutraceutical in the action, including
all the individual and the Class claims resolved by the Settlement
Agreement, are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysvff3nz from
Leagle.com.


OKLOHAMA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Marijuana Tracking Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mariah Ellis at FOX23 News reports that a class-action lawsuit has
been filed against the Oklahoma State Department of Health and the
Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority.

The law firm, Viridian Legal Services PLLC, filed the lawsuit to
halt the state's Metrc seed-to-sale program. They say the
implementation of the program was unlawful and that the company
would monopolize and earn over $12 million in the first year.

During a press conference, Ronald Durbin, II, partner and
co-founder of Viridian Legal Services PLLC, said, "The OMMA and the
Oklahoma Department of Health have been fundamentally flawed in
every aspect in manner in which they have adopted, implemented and
enforced this program."

Beau Zoellner, Chief Operating Officer of Dr. Z Leaf, was also
present during the press conference. Zoellner said he's concerned
the tracking tags and the cost that would be required through Metrc
would not only put an extra burden on his business, but also
increase the cost of medical marijuana for his customers.

Durbin stated that OMMA and OSDH failed to inspect thousands of
licensed businesses since Oklahoma passed SQ788 which legalized
medical marijuana in Oklahoma. He said part of the state question
called for a seed-to-sale tracking system so that the Medical
Marijuana Authority could track cannabis sales throughout the
state. Durbin said OMMA now has turned to a system called Metrc
without first going through the legislature and Governor Kevin
Stitt.

Durbin said the lawsuit has been filed in Okmulgee County where
Zoellner's grow and processing facility is located. They expect a
hearing in the next 10 days. [GN]

OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Jose Sues Over Retaliation & Unpaid Wages/Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KIRSTEN E. JOSE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIVER HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a THE
FAIRLANE HOTEL AND ELLINGTON'S MID WAY BAR & GRILL, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00269 (M.D. Tenn., April 1, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful employment and pay practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender from
approximately September 2019 to March 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant paid her and other
similarly situated bartenders and servers at $3.50 per hour that is
lower than the required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In order to
meet the required minimum wage, the Defendant allegedly used a "tip
credit" for each hour worked by its bartenders and servers. In
addition, the Defendant kept a portion of the Plaintiff and other
servers and bartenders' tips before dividing the remainder among
them, thereby failing to pay them all the tips that they have
actually earned, the Plaintiff adds.

Despite the Plaintiff's repeated complaints, the Defendant
allegedly refused to address her concerns that she was not paid the
hourly wage she had been promised as well as the tips which she has
lawfully earned. Instead, the Defendant's management badgered and
complained about the Plaintiff's job performance and attitude. One
of the members of the Defendant's management even told the
Plaintiff that the Defendant was "not afraid to clean house." The
Plaintiff subsequently notified the Defendant in a March 18, 2021
email that she intended to end her employment with the Defendant,
and then continued to try to address the pay discrepancies
following her email. Instead of addressing her concerns, the
Defendant terminated her employment on March 25, 2021, the suit
asserts.

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated servers and
bartenders, the Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint
to recover all unpaid and underpaid minimum and overtime wages from
the Defendant, as well as all tips they earned, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

Oliver Hospitality, LLC is a company that owns and operates The
Fairlane Hotel and Ellington's Mid Way Bar & Grill. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OVERCASH PIPELINE: Sued Over Non Payment of Arbitration Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BLAINE ADAMS, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 132, TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 132 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 132 PENSION FUND, TRUSTEES OF
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 132 APPRENTICESHIP
FUND, and TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 132 ANNUITY AND SAVINGS FUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OVERCASH PIPELINE,
LLC, MARTIN OVERCASH, and MARGO OVERCASH, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00051-JPB (N.D.W. Va., April 7, 2021) seeks to enforce the
award of an arbitrator on a grievance for non-payment of wages and
benefits in which the Defendants lost the grievance and were
ordered to make payment under the relevant collective bargaining
agreement.

The Plaintiffs also alleges violation of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

OVERCASH PIPELINE, LLC is in the refined petroleum pipelines
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
          PETSONK PLLC
          223 Prince Street
          Beckley, WV 25802
          Telephone: (304) 900-3171
          Facsimile: (304) 986-4633
          E-mail: sam@petsonk.com


PARTNER COMMS: Facing Unlawful ISP Service Charge Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
is facing a putative class action suit related to unlawful ISP
service charge.

On November 2, 2020, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and two of its
subsidiaries, 012 Smile Telecom Ltd. and 012 Telecom Ltd. as well
as against another operator.

The claim alleges that the Company as well as the other respondents
charged its customers a fee for ISP service after they began
receiving this service from another company and that the
respondents did not provide the service in return for payment.

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
applicants to be approximately NIS 2.5 million (however the claim
was estimated by the applicants to be tens of millions of Shekels).


The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Facing Unlawful ISP Service Fee Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
is facing a putative class action suit related to its alleged
unlawful charging of ISP service fee.

On November 2, 2020, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and 012 Telecom Ltd.

The claim alleges that the Company charged its customers a fee for
ISP service after they began receiving this service from another
company and that the respondents did not provide the service in
return for payment.

The total amount claimed against the Company was not stated by the
applicants (however the claim was estimated by the applicants to be
over NIS 2.5 million).

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim for NIS 300 Million Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a claim
dated July 15, 2014, against the company is still in its
preliminary stage.

On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators and content providers. The claim alleges that
the cellular operators, including the Company, breached legal
provisions and provisions of their licenses and thereby created a
platform that led to the customers' damages alleged in the claim.

The total amount claimed against all of the defendants is estimated
by the applicant to be approximately NIS 300 million.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Location Data-Related Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a lawsuit related to the company's unlawful use
of customers' location data.

On October 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and another cellular
operator.

The claim alleges that Partner harms the privacy of its customers
by unlawfully using their location data.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
applicant to be approximately NIS 1 billion.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: November 2016 Claim for NIS 157.5 Million Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a claim
dated November 20, 2016, against the company is ongoing.

On November 20, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

On February 17, 2021, the applicant filed an amended motion that
claimed, among other things, that the Company breached legal
provisions when it does not update its customers who purchased
equipment from the Company in a credit transaction regarding the
required interest rate and/or that it does not specify the cash
price and/or that it notes an incorrect interest rate.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
applicant to be approximately NIS 157.5 million.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PATRICK HIRSCH: Faces Hetland Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Hetland, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Patrick Hirsch d/b/a Outlaw Roadside Service, and
Patrick Hirsch and Jane Doe Hirsch, a Married Couple, Case No.
2:21-cv-00487-MTL (D. Ariz., March 22, 2021) is a class action for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arizona Minimum Wage Act for the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff all earned minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated current and former employees of the Defendants
who were roadside assistance technicians classified by the
Defendants as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Maricopa County,
Arizona, and is a former employee of the Defendants.

Outlaw Roadside is a full service emergency roadside assistance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

PRECIGEN INC: Raju Shah Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Abadilla Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARTIN JOSEPH ABADILLA, Plaintiff v.
PRECIGEN, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-06936-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants
Plaintiff Raju Shah's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and denies
the remaining motions.

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff Abadilla filed a securities class
action suit in the Court alleging violations of various securities
laws against Precigen, Inc., formerly known as Intrexon Corp.,
Precigen Chairman and CEO Randal J. Kirk, and Precigen CFO Rick K.
Sterling.  The complaint alleges that between May 10, 2017, and
September 25, 2020, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts
that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its
announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform
instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock
were substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane
yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure
methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable
feedstock; (4) the Company's financial statements for the quarter
ended March 31, 2018, were false and could not be relied upon; (5)
the Company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

Shortly after the Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, two other
securities fraud suits were filed against Precigen alleging
substantially the same facts and legal theory (Seppen v. Precigen,
Inc., et al, No. 20-cv-07586-BLF; and Chen v. Precigen, Inc. f/k/a
Intrexon Corporation, et al., No. 20-cv-07442-BLF). On March 4,
2021, the Court consolidated the three cases.

On December 4, 2020, four plaintiffs filed a motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel: (1) Raju
Shah, (2) Kenneth R. Clayton, (3) Chris Lorino, Michael Lorino,
George Shehata, and Harold B. Obstfeld ("Lorino Plaintiffs"), and
(4) Joseph Seppen.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA")
governs the procedure for selection of lead plaintiff in all
private class actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff has the right, subject to court
approval, to select and retain counsel to represent the class.

Pursuant to the PSLRA, the Rosen Law Firm published notice of the
pending action on October 5, 2020, the same date the complaint was
filed. The notice announced the pendency of this action, listed the
claims, specified the class period, and advised putative class
members that they had 60 days from the date of the notice to file a
motion to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Thus,
the notice complied with the PSLRA's requirements, according to
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

All four Plaintiffs filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
on December 4, 2020, the last day within the 60-day deadline. All
Plaintiffs have met the statutory notice requirements.

The Court must next identify the presumptive lead plaintiff--the
prospective lead plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in
the litigation. Each movant has supplied information regarding
shares purchased during the class period, the price of those
shares, and their approximate losses:

   -- Plaintiff Shah: $413,484.49;
   -- Lorino Plaintiffs: $405,155;
   -- Plaintiff Clayton: $134,293.08; and
   -- Plaintiff Seppen: $90,000.

After each movant filed their opening brief, Seppen and Clayton
filed statements of non-opposition acknowledging that they each
appeared not to possess the largest financial interest as required
by the PSLRA.

The Court first considers the financial loss of Shah. The Lorino
Plaintiffs argue that Shah's motion improperly includes the losses
of his wife. Shah responds that the Lorino Plaintiffs' argument is
"without legal or factual basis." Shah explains that while he
submitted a declaration in support of his motion stating that he
purchased his Precigen shares "for myself and my wife," he
purchased the Precigen stock from a joint account he shares with
his wife. Shah argues that he has an ownership interest in all
losses flowing from those purchases. His declaration and associated
exhibits further support his ownership interest in the losses.
According to Shah, this is a "giant speculative leap" by the Lorino
Plaintiffs.

The Court agrees. The Lorino Plaintiffs point to no evidence to
support their belief that Shah and his wife suffered independent
losses. Instead, their argument appears to be predicated solely on
the statement in Shah's declaration that he purchased shares for
himself and his wife. The Court has reviewed Shah's motion and
accompanying evidence and is satisfied that he has an ownership
interest in the $413,484.49 loss. The Lorino Plaintiffs' authority
to the contrary is inapt as it involves a situation where a husband
made investment decisions with his wife's individual account.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Shah is the movant with the
largest financial interest.

The Plaintiff with the largest financial stake in the controversy
that preliminarily satisfies the typicality and adequacy
requirements is presumed to be the "most adequate plaintiff," Judge
Freeman opines, citing In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d at 730 (9th Cir.
2002). The Judge adds that as determined, Shah is the Plaintiff
with the largest financial stake in the controversy, and he
presumably meets the adequacy requirement because there is no
evidence that he is antagonistic to the class members and he has
selected counsel that has significant experience in securities
class action cases. Shah also shares substantially similar
questions of law and fact with the members of the class because the
claims arise from the same alleged course of conduct by defendants.
His claims are presumptively typical of the members of the class.
Thus, Shah is the presumptive lead plaintiff.

The Court has already rejected the Lorino Plaintiffs and Seppen's
sole objection to Shah's ability to meet Rule 23's typicality and
adequacy requirements. And the remaining movant does not otherwise
challenge Shah's showing. The Court has, thus, found, in Shah, the
Plaintiff with the largest financial stake who fulfills the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No parties have objected to Shah's selection of Scott+Scott as lead
counsel. The Court has reviewed the resume of the firm and is
satisfied that Shah has made a reasonable choice of counsel.
Accordingly, the Court approves Shah's selection of Scott+Scott as
lead counsel.

For these reasons, Plaintiff Shah's motion to appoint lead
plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel at ECF 11 is
granted. The competing motions at ECF 16, 21 and 22 are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/x5mu7432 from Leagle.com.


PRESIDIO INC: Employee Files Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
North American IT company Presidio faces a proposed data breach
class action by an employee for an incident involving employee
data. Eric LaPrairie, a former Presidio employee, received a notice
of a data breach from Presidio, and about a month later found out
that he was the victim of a SIM swap (a technique in which a hacker
uses personal information to swap someone's telephone number onto a
new phone). After the SIM swap, LaPrairie claims the hacker was
able to reset some of LaPrairie's online passwords and attempted to
gain access to his bank accounts and other accounts storing
personal documents.

LaPrairie claims that he spent between 15-20 hours working with his
mobile carrier to correct the problem and updating his online
account security.

On March 5, 2020, a hacker accessed Presidio's servers and the
personal information of 3,324 current or former employees,
including their names, Social Security numbers, employment
information, and tax information. The affected employees received
notices about the breach in April 2020. Presidio offered either 12
or 24 months of credit monitoring services to all individuals who
were affected.

LaPrairie seeks to represent a nationwide class of all current and
former employees in a data breach class action and claims
negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of several state laws. LaPrairie is seeking damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, and for a requirement that Presidio bolster its
security measures. [GN]

PRINCE TELECOM: Faces Roman Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ROMAN, JIQUELLE KINNARD, and ANTHONY HAYWARD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PRINCE TELECOM, LLC; COMCAST CORPORATION; and COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00693-YK (M.D. Pa., April 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts wage-and-hour laws
including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to maintain
accurate time and payroll records, failure to provide with accurate
time and payroll statements, failure to provide with genuine,
uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and failure to pay their agreed-upon
compensation in a timely manner and without unlawful deductions.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as technicians at any time
between 2017 and 2019.

Prince Telecom, LLC is an installation service provider
headquartered at 551A Mews Drive, New Castle, Delaware.

Comcast Corporation is an American telecommunications conglomerate
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC is a
telecommunications company based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                  
         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
         Stacy Savett, Esq.
         Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 crodriguez@bm.net
                 stasavett@bm.net
                 dthornton@bm.net

                - and –

         Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
         Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
         Ori Edelstein, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 mlim@schneiderwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

PSCU INC: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adam Gibbons, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PSCU, Inc., A
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01719-DLR (D. Ariz.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting Parties' joint
motion for conditional certification of collective action on behalf
of:

   "all hourly call-center employees who have been employed by
   PSCU, Inc., anywhere in the State of Arizona, at any time from
   September 1, 2017 through the final disposition of this matter"

   ("Putative Class Members"), that the Defendant did not properly

   compensate them for all overtime hours worked by requiring them

   to perform certain job duties "off the clock," that is, on their

   own personal time and for no pay."

PSCU is the largest credit union service organization in the United
States. The organization was founded in 1977 and is based in St.
Petersburg, Florida.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated April 7, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mX2fV3 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          Clara S. Acosta, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tracy A. Miller, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC
          Esplanade Center III
          2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 778-3704
          E-mail: Tracy.miller@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Mikula, Esq.
          Mami Kato, Esq.
          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC
          34977 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 593-6400
          E-mail: christopher.mikula@ogletree.com
                  mami.kato@ogletree.com
                  patrick.hulla@ogletree.com

RAQNOR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Safranek Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JIRI SAFRANEK, PAVEL CEVELA, SIMON KOUSA, and GRZEGORZ SZMUC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RAQNOR, LLC, ROBERT RUDZINSKI, and RAYNOLD RUDZINSKI,
Defendants, Case No. 708007/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., April 7,
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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

RAQNOR, LLC is engaged in the construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Brenecki, Esq.
          JODRE BRENECKI, LLP
          71-27 Fresh Pond Road, 2nd Floor
          Queens, NY 11385
          Telephone: (347) 563-2605


RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Corn Says Collection Letters "Deceptive"
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CORN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECOVERY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-02823 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff
collection letters on or about May 16, 2020 and on or about June
18, 2020 in an attempt to collect an alleged debt and/or student
loans incurred to the University of Arizona primarily for her
college education. Accordingly, the University transferred the
Plaintiff's account to the Defendant for the purpose of collection.


The Plaintiff contends that both collection letters he received
state different balances. He added that the Defendant failed to
indicate that the balance would increase over time if payment was
not made promptly, but the University's accounting Plaintiff in the
Defendant's validation response included an even higher "RMS
Collection Fee" that is approximately 30% of the outstanding
University balance, including late fees. The Defendant also refused
to provide the Plaintiff a breakdown of what comprises its cost or
fee, the Plaintiff contends.

Because the Defendant has used false or misleading
misrepresentations or means in their efforts to collect consumer
debts, it allegedly violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have
suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking
to recover damages from the Defendant, including actual, statutory
and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, as well as an injunctive relief enjoining the
Defendant from engaging in the unlawfully deceptive collection
practices, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just
under the circumstances.

Recovery Management Services, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
          Joshua Tarrant-Windt, Esq.
          BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          352 Rutland Road #1
          Brooklyn, NY 11225
          Tel: (212) 248-7906
          E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com
                  joshua@bromberglawoffice.com


RENEWABLE ENERGY: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Renewable Energy Group, Inc. ("Renewable
Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REGI) on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of the Company's securities between May 3, 2018
and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Renewable Energy investors who suffered an investment loss in
excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/renewable-energy-group-inc/, for
additional information about this action and their legal rights and
options.

As detailed in the complaint, on February 25, 2021, Renewable
Energy issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results. Therein, the Company revealed
that it would restate "$38.2 million in cumulative revenue from
January 2018 through September 30, 2020" because Renewable Energy
was not the "proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel
it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020." Renewable
Energy further stated that it had reached an agreement with the
Internal Revenue Service "on a $40.5 million assessment, excluding
interest" to correct these claims.

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $8.17 per
share, or 9.5% in value, to close at $77.77 per share on February
26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Renewable Energy's
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 3, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the
action. Renewable Energy investors who suffered an investment loss
in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to
discuss this opportunity to actively participate in the action.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniluk Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH DANILUK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., CITADEL, LLC, d/b/a
Citadel Securities, POINT72 ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P., Case No.
3:21-cv-00980, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21430-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, tortious
interference with business relationship and contract, negligence,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, agreement in
restraint of trade, and violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law by
removing stocks from their trading platforms in the midst of an
unprecedented stock rise thereby depriving retail investors the
ability to invest in the open-market.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Citadel, LLC, doing business as Citadel Securities, is a financial
services company, headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois.

Point72 Asset Management, L.P. is a hedge fund company based in
Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Charles D. Marshall, Esq.
         MARSHALL LAW FIRM
         2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 575-7105
         Facsimile: (855) 575-7105
         E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com

                 - and –

         James P. Batson, Esq.
         Christopher V. Langone, Esq.
         520 White Plains Rd., Ste. 500
         Tarrytown, NY 10591

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Trade Orders
------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC LANDRETH and JAIME MARQUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, AND ROBINHOOD MARKETS LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-02010-YGR (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of all clients of Robinhood who placed trade orders with
Robinhood between September 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, (the Class
Period) which were not executed in accordance with the Defendant's
duty to secure the best execution available.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5; violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligence; unjust
enrichment; and violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated customers of
Robinhood, a wholly owned subsidiary of co-defendant Robinhood
Markets, Inc.

Robinhood is a privately-owned financial services company that
offers its customers the ability to self-direct their investments
in stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptocurrency through its website
and mobile application. Since its launch in 2015, Robinhood has
grown into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. With the stated
mission to "democratize finance for all," the Company has targeted
young adults -- the median age of a Robinhood user is thirty one 2
-- and novice investors through youth-forward marketing and an
interface that "gamifies" investing.

Robinhood encourages its largely unsophisticated customer base to
trade frequently, most notably by promising "commission-free
investing" and offering "unlimited commission-free trades in
stocks, funds, and options."

Robinhood's customers pay a hidden cost on each trade, however, one
which often exceeds the cost Robinhood's competitors' commissions.
Robinhood accomplished this sleight of hand through undisclosed
arrangements that generate substantial profit for Robinhood in
exchanged for inferior execution quality for each and every one of
its customers' trades. In order to conceal these arrangements, the
sizable revenue resulting therefrom, and their impact on customer
trade execution prices, Robinhood omitted, misrepresented, and
concealed material facts from its customers and the public. The SEC
found that this scheme cost Robinhood's customers approximately
$34.1 million "even after netting the approximately $5 per-order
commission costs" charged by Robinhood's competitors, the
Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Selin Demir, Esq.
          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq
          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          Bryan Faubus, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Quat Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC QUAT, AARON FASSINGER, MIKE ROSS, IGOR KRAVCHENKO, MICHAEL
McFADDEN and TENZIN WOISER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-21404 (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case arises from the Defendants' actions to prohibit their
customers from buying multiple publicly traded stocks, including
but not limited to GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC),
American Airlines (AAL), Nokia (NOK), BlackBerry Limited (BB), Bed
Bath & Beyond (BBBY), Express (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS),
Naked Brand Group (NAKD), Sundial Growers, Inc. (SNDL), Tootsie
Roll Industries (TR), and Trivago NV (TRVG), during an
unprecedented rise in valuation for the aforementioned stocks.
Allegedly, the Defendants' move not only deprived their customers
from taking advantage of the rise of the stocks valuation but also
manipulated the free and open market, causing a substantial
decrease in the stocks valuation.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                  
         Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

                - and –

         Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Kelley Antitrust Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN KELLEY and ZACKARY KELLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS,
INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, TD
AMERITRADE, INC., and E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORP., Case No.
4:21-cv-00093, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21428-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
negligence, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act by restricting their retail investors to
purchase stocks from their trading platforms when the stocks hit
dramatic highs thereby depriving them the ability to invest in the
open-market.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.

E*Trade Financial Corporation is a financial services company, with
its headquarters at 671 North Glebe Road, Ballston Tower,
Arlington, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
         Will Crowder, Esq.
         THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
         1101 Garland Street
         Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
         Telephone: (501) 374-1058
         Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
         E-mail: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
                 willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Saliba Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEAN-PAUL SALIBA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD CRYPTO, LLC
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 4:21-cv-00871, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21432-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, unfair competition, and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act by removing GameStop stock from their
trading platforms in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise
thereby depriving retail investors the ability to invest in the
open-market.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Crypto, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Evan Selik, Esq.
         Christine Zaouk, Esq.
         McCATHERN LLP
         523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
         Los Angeles, CA 90014
         Telephone: (213) 225-6150
         Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
         E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
                 czaouk@mccathernlaw.com

RPS HOLDINGS: De Sa Sues Over Tip Pooling & Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONIQUE DE SA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RPS HOLDINGS, LLC dba CAPITAL CABARET, a
North Carolina Limited Liability Company; PRS PARTNERS, LLC, a
North Carolina Limited Liability Company; PHONG NGUYEN, an
individual; PEGGY ANN ROHM, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through
3; and DOES 4 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00041-D (E.D.N.C., April 1, 2021) seeks to recover damages
from the Defendants' alleged evasion of the mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as dancer/entertainer for the Defendants at
various times from approximately 2014 to January 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified its
dancers/entertainers as independent contractors, including her. The
Defendants did not pay them whatsoever for any hours worked at
their establishment, not even for the time they spent getting ready
in order to comply with the Defendants' dress and appearance
standards. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
dancers/entertainers were only compensated exclusively through tips
from the Defendants' customers. However, the Defendants required
them to share their tips with the Defendants and other nontipped
employees, and imposed monetary fees for not following the
Defendant's rules, the Plaintiff adds.

As a result, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated dancers/entertainers were
not paid an hourly minimum wage or any hourly wage or salary and
overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40. Moreover, the Defendants
allegedly failed to maintain records of wages, fines, fees, tips
and gratuities and/or service chares paid or received by
entertainers.

The Corporate Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment
facility owned by the Individual Defendants.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall J. Phillips, Esq.
          CHARLES G. MONNTETT III & ASSOCIATES
          6842 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 100
          Charlotte, NC 28211
          Tel: (704) 376-1911
          Fax: (704) 376-1921
          E-mail: rphillips@carolinalaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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


SAN FRANCISCO HILTON: Class Cert. of Banquet Service Staff Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAIKUNTHA KHANAL et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAN
FRANCISCO HILTON, INC., Case No. 4:14-cv-01523-JSW (N.D. Calif.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of:

   "similarly situated banquet service staff, including servers
and
   bussers, who have worked for the Defendant from January 6, 2010,

   through the present."

Like the putative class members, the named plaintiffs, who seek to
serve as class representatives, were hired by Defendant to serve
food and beverages to patrons attending events at the hotel.

This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on the ground that the Defendant has imposed
gratuities on the sale of food and beverages at its hotel located
on Union Square, 333 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California,
but it has failed to distribute the total proceeds of these
gratuities to these employees as required by California law.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 6,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QyEaI1
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

SHAULI ENTERPRISES: Faces Reyes Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ONASIS REYES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHAULI ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a CHOP CHOP,
SHAULI ENTERPRISES TWO INC. d/b/a CHOP CHOP, ANDREW RUTTA and JESSE
RUTTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021)
brings this complaint as a collection action against the Defendants
for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
kitchen delivery worker from 2019 to January 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendant failed to pay them at least the minimum wage for all
hours they worked, and the statutorily required overtime rate of
one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In addition, the
Defendants willfully failed maintain and keep records, and failed
to provide them with a proper notice and acknowledgement of their
wage rate upon hire in his primary language, and with accurate wage
statements for each pay period, the Plaintiff adds.

The Corporate Defendants operate a restaurant owned by the
Individual Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588


SIGNATURE SYSTEMS: Smith BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONESHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SIGNATURE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2021CH01145, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02025 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing,
and using the fingerprints and associated personally identifying
information of state residents employed by its clients without
obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention
policies.

Signature Systems, Inc. is a software company, with its principal
place of business located in Warminster, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                 
         
         Lisa Handler Ackerman, Esq.
         WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
         55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3800
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 704-0550
         Facsimile: (312) 704-1522
         E-mail: lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com

SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces Horowitz Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skywest Airlines,
Inc. The case is captioned as Gregory Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines,
Inc., Case No. RG21092756 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March 22,
2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

SkyWest is an American regional airline headquartered in St.
George, Utah, United States. It primarily serves major air carriers
via contracts with Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air
Lines, and United Airlines.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Jeff Geraci, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          E-mail: jgeraci@ckslaw.com

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Must Supplement Counterclaims in D'Ottavio Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey directs the
Defendant to submit supplemental submissions to support the
legitimacy of its counterclaims in the lawsuit styled GINO
D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES,
Defendant/Counterclaimant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09082-NLH-AMD
(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the
Defendant transmitted dozens of unsolicited commercial text
messages to him on his cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act("TCPA"), thereby, invading his
privacy. Slack filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint denying
his claims and lodging counterclaims, claiming that the Plaintiff
abused a feature on Slack's website to deliberately send himself
the texts at issue.

Slack alleges that this feature was designed to allow desktop users
of Slack to download and use a version of the application on their
mobile devices, but instead the Plaintiff abused the feature 1,590
times to send himself 1,590 texts to trump up his baseless TCPA
lawsuit. Slack alleges that each text was an act of fraud by the
Plaintiff, intended to manufacture "injury" and a baseless demand
for recovery. Slack alleges that the Plaintiff is well-versed in
the TCPA, having brought five separate actions under the TCPA
against a range of companies before suing Slack. Slack has alleged
counterclaims against the Plaintiff for wanton and willful
misconduct, common law fraud, breach of express contract, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff, through his prior counsel, filed an
answer to Slack's counterclaims, denying Slack's claims. On April
15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his
claims against Slack, but denied without prejudice Slack's motion
for sanctions, as well as his counsel's motion to withdraw as
counsel. On July 3, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
counsel's motion to withdraw.

Because Slack's counterclaims remained pending for separate
adjudication, the Court directed that within 20 days, the Plaintiff
was to either (1) enter his appearance pro se; or (2) obtain new
counsel. The Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's Order, and
on October 7, 2019, the Court directed Slack to commence
prosecution of its claims against the Plaintiff consistent with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In December 2019, Slack filed a motion for summary judgment and two
letters with the Court, all of which detailed the Plaintiff's
failure to respond to all of Slack's discovery requests and his
failure to appear at a scheduled deposition.

On July 9, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment. It ordered that the Plaintiff was to
show cause, within 20 days, as to why his answer to the Defendant's
counterclaims should not be stricken and default judgment entered
against him. In issuing that decision, the Court noted that in
addition to the Plaintiff failing to respond to this Court's
October 7, 2019 Order, the Plaintiff had (1) failed to respond to
Slack's discovery requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 36,
both of which impose an affirmative duty on the parties to
participate in discovery, and (2) failed to respond to the Court's
discovery order directing him to provide computers and cell phones
for forensic examination. The Court further noted that according to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), when a party fails to obey an order to
provide or permit discovery, the Court may strike a pleading in
whole or in part, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), and render a
default judgment against the disobedient party, Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A)(vi).

The Plaintiff has again failed to respond to the Court's Order or
otherwise participate in the defense of the Defendant's claims
against him. Consequently, the Court finds that the remedies
provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv) for the
Plaintiff's disregard of his discovery obligations and this Court's
orders are warranted.

District Judge Noel L. Hillman holds that, (1) the Plaintiff is
personally responsible for his inaction as he is acting pro se; (2)
the Defendant is prejudiced by his failure to participate in
discovery or respond to the Court's orders because Defendant cannot
pursue its counterclaims against him; (3) since the Plaintiff's
counsel withdrew from the case on July 3, 2019, he has never
contacted the Court; (4) it appears that his inaction is
intentional, as there is no indication that the Defendant's
correspondence and this Court's Orders have not been successfully
transmitted to the Plaintiff; (5) no sanction other than default
judgment would be effective based on his failure to respond to the
Defendant's discovery requests and this Court's Orders; and (6)
without the Plaintiff's participation, this Court cannot assess the
merit of any defenses to the Defendant's counterclaims that he may
have.

Thus, in consideration of the Poulis factors and Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv), the Court finds that default judgment as
a sanction against the Plaintiff is warranted. The Defendant has
asserted four counterclaims against Plaintiff: (1) willful and
wanton misconduct; (2) common law fraud; (3) breach of express
contract; and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

In order to issue a default judgment on the Defendant's
counterclaims, however, the Court must be satisfied that each of
the Defendant's counterclaims constitutes a legitimate cause of
action, and that the factual allegations in the Defendant's
counterclaims, when deemed admitted, support each cause of action.
Additionally, the Defendant's requested damages must be supported
under the law and established through affidavits and other
materials.

Judge Hillman holds that the Defendant's counterclaims do not cite
to a specific state's law. In other submissions to the Court, the
Defendant has cited to New Jersey law. The Court notes, however,
that the Defendant's counterclaims reference an "Acceptable Use
Policy" and "User Terms," which include a section marked "Governing
Law; Venue; Waiver of Jury Trial; Fees." The counterclaim complaint
is silent as to the content of the governing law and venue
provision. Judge Hillman points out that the Defendant must address
this in their supplemental submission to support the entry of
default judgment.

Hence, within 30 days, the Defendant will submit the supplemental
submissions as directed by the Court to support the legitimacy of
its counterclaims and to establish the appropriate measure of
damages, Judge Hillman rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36thhs4b from Leagle.com.

GINO D'OTTAVIO, in Mays Landing, New Jersey,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant pro se.

PAUL JEFFREY BOND -- Paul.Bond@hklaw.com -- MARK S. MELODIA --
Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, On behalf of Defendant/Counterclaimant.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Smith Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00194 (E.D. Va., April 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Smith was employed as a knife operator at the Defendant's pork
processing plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina between May 2017 and
June 2020.

Smithfield Foods, Inc. is a pork producer and food-processing
company based in Smithfield, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         James R. Theuer, Esq.
         JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
         555 E. Main Street, Ste. 1212
         Norfolk, VA 23510
         Telephone: (757) 446-8047
         Facsimile: (757) 446-8048
         E-mail: jim@theuerlaw.com

                 - and –

         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Medley BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AARON MEDLEY, TRISTAN MEDLEY, and CARLOS
OUSLEY-BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., d/b/a SARATOGA FOOD
SPECIALTIES, Case No. 2021CH000060, was removed from the State of
Illinois Circuit Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01919 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Act by collecting, capturing,
receiving, or otherwise obtaining and storing its employees'
fingerprints without prior consent.

Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., doing business as Saratoga Food
Specialties, is a producer of processed-meat and fresh-pork
products based in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Torsten M. Kracht, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
         Washington, DC 20037
         Telephone: (202) 419–2149
         E-mail: tkracht@HuntonAK.com

SOS LIMITED: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of SOS
Limited. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

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

SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS)
Class Period: July 22, 2020 - February 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or
existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed
in its SEC filings; (2) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related
parties and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (3) the Company
had misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs
that it claimed to have purchased; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

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

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]

SPUR ENERGY: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in D.N.M.
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPUR ENERGY PARTNERS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00334 (D.N.M., April 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by misclassifying the
Plaintiff and Class members as independent contractor and by
failing to compensate them overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Taylor worked for Spur Energy as a drilling consultant from
approximately November 2018 until February 2021 in and around
Artesia and Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Spur Energy Partners LLC is an oil and gas exploration service with
its principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 tjones@mybackwages.com

                 - and –

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

STOKES HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Pet Parade Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PET PARADE, INC., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. STOKES
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24279-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Ursula Ungaro entered an order directing the Clerk of Court
to administratively close the case.

All future hearings and deadlines are cancelled, and all pending
motions are denied as moot, says Judge Ungaro.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3swjf5o  at no extra
charge.[CC]


STRATHMORE INSURANCE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Select Hospitality Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Select Hospitality, LLC, Plaintiff v. Strathmore
Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11414-NMG (D.
Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts allowed the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The case is a putative class action brought by Select, on behalf of
itself and several putative classes of other persons and entities,
who own interests in businesses insured by Strathmore that suffered
business interruption losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Select is a Massachusetts limited liability company that owns and
operates the Grand Tour restaurant in downtown Boston,
Massachusetts.  Grand Tour was covered by a commercial property
insurance policy issued by Strathmore for a one-year term beginning
on Jan. 24, 2020.

The Policy provides for Business Income (and Extra Expense)
Coverage for income lost and expenses incurred during a necessary
"suspension" of operations caused by "direct physical loss of or
damage to" the insured property.  Additional coverage is provided
by the Policy for losses "caused by action of civil authority that
prohibits access" to the insured premises when a Covered Cause of
Loss "causes damage to property other than" the insured location as
long as two additional conditions are met. Those conditions need
not be addressed to resolve this motion.  The Policy does not
contain a coverage exclusion for losses caused by viruses, bacteria
and other disease-causing agents.

During the term of the Policy, state and local governments,
including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Boston,
issued various orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Those
orders mandated, inter alia, that restaurants temporarily suspend
on-premises dining and limit operations to carry-out and delivery
services.  The Plaintiff alleges that its operations have remained
severely restricted even after on-premises dining in Massachusetts
was allowed to resume in June, 2020.

On April 1, 2020, Select submitted a claim to Strathmore seeking
insurance coverage under the Policy for its business interruption
losses purportedly caused by the Government Orders. Strathmore
denied the claim on April 13, 2020.  According to the Plaintiff,
Strathmore failed to inspect or review the Grand Tour property or
documents concerning its business activities in 2020 and
implemented a national policy of denying claims related to losses
caused by COVID-19 without investigation.

The Plaintiff filed its complaint in the Court on July 27, 2020, on
behalf of itself and several other putative classes of persons and
entities that 1) owned interests in businesses currently insured by
the Defendant under insurance policies lacking express virus
exclusions and 2) suffered business interruption losses as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The complaint asserts three counts against the Defendant: 1)
declaratory judgment that the Strathmore policies cover the
business interruption losses of Select and other members of the
classes (Count I); 2) breach of contract for failure to pay
business income and civil authority coverage under the Policy
(Count II); and 3) for violation of M.G.L. c. 93A for denying the
claims of Select and other members of the classes without
conducting a reasonable investigation (Count III).

The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in September 2020, which the Plaintiff
timely opposed.

First, Strathmore contends that Select fails to state a claim for
business income and extra expense coverage because it cannot plead
facts sufficient to show "direct physical loss of or damage to" the
Grand Tour restaurant.

Judge Gorton notes that Strathmore correctly observes that Select
has not plausibly alleged that COVID-19 was present at its insured
property or that its losses resulted from the presence of the
virus.  And, even if the complaint plausibly alleged that the
presence of COVID-19 caused business interruption losses, Select
would not be entitled to coverage under the Policy.

The Judge also finds that it is clear that the weight of legal
authority supports dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim for business
income and extra expense coverage in Count II.  Lastly, under the
express terms of the relevant provision of the Policy, Select is
entitled to coverage only for losses resulting from "direct
physical loss of or damage to" its insured property and the absence
of a virus exclusion does not insinuate the expansion of such
coverage.  Accordingly, Count II of the complaint will be dismissed
with respect to the claim for coverage under the business income
and extra expense provisions of the Policy.

Second, Strathmore contends that the complaint fails to state a
claim for coverage under the Policy's civil authority provision.
Specifically, it asserts that Select can identify no damage to
property other than the insured premises and that the Government
Orders do not "prohibit access" to Grand Tour.

Judge Gorton holds that although Select alleges that the Government
Orders prohibited access to Grand Tour, it acknowledges that those
orders permitted carry-out and delivery operations.  Consequently,
Select cannot establish a necessary prerequisite of coverage under
the civil authority provision of the Policy.

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff could demonstrate that access to
the Grand Tour restaurant was prohibited by the Government Orders,
Select would not be entitled to civil authority coverage.  To
warrant civil authority coverage, access to the insured property
must be prohibited by civil authority "as a result of the damage"
to property other than the insured premises.  In the case, Select
concedes that the issuance of the Government Orders was a
preventative measure "to slow the spread of COVID-19."
Furthermore, the mere presence of the COVID-19 virus does not
constitute property damage and Select does not identify any
specific property to have been damaged. Such deficiencies are fatal
to its claim.  Accordingly, Count II of the complaint will be
dismissed with respect to the claim for coverage under the Policy's
civil authority provision.

Third, Strathmore seeks to dismiss Select's Chapter 93A claim,
which is based on the allegedly unfair and deceptive investigation
and denial of its insurance claim.

Judge Gorton explains that Chapter 93A prohibits "unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce."  In the insurance context,
specifically, an insurer does not violate Chapter 93A in denying
coverage "so long as it made a good faith determination to deny
coverage" even if the insurer's interpretation of the policy was
incorrect.  The Court has concluded that Strathmore correctly
denied coverage under the Policy.  Therefore, dismissal of the
Chapter 93A claim is warranted.

Finally, Count I seeks a declaration that the Strathmore policies
cover the claims of Select and the members of the putative classes
and that no exclusion applies to bar or limit such coverage.
Because Judge Gorton has determined that Select has failed to plead
facts sufficient to demonstrate that it is entitled to coverage
under the Policy, dismissal of Count I is inevitable.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton allowed the motion of the
Defendant to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46amb82s from Leagle.com.


SUNCORP GROUP: Subsidiary Hit With Insurance Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AAI Limited is facing a class action in the Supreme Court of
Victoria.

In an ASX filing, parent firm Suncorp Group confirmed receipt of
the representative proceeding against its subsidiary. The case
centres on AAI's sale of add-on insurance through MTA Insurance
(MTAI).

MTAI, which was acquired by Suncorp in 2014, specialises in retail
motor insurance products sold through car dealerships across
Australia. These are Loan Protection Insurance (LPI) and Equity
Plus Insurance (EPI).

LPI is a type of consumer credit insurance that covers loan
repayments should the customer die, suffer a traumatic event such
as a heart attack, become disabled, or become involuntarily
unemployed.

EPI, meanwhile, is also known as guaranteed asset protection
insurance.

Insurance Business understands that AAI is accused of breaching
consumer protection laws.

Last year, a similar class action was launched against Allianz
Australia over what were described as "worthless" and "junk" add-on
insurance policies provided via car dealers.

In its statement, Suncorp said:" This matter is currently being
reviewed, and Suncorp intends to defend this class action."

The lawsuit is not yet listed, meaning the date has not been set
for the proceeding's case management conference. [GN]

SUTTER VALLEY: Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Tinnin Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTEENA TINNIN, Plaintiff v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion
        to compel the Defendant to produce documents; and

   (ii) denied the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees
        pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5).

The Plaintiff filed the action on April 2, 2020, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay
overtime wages; violations of the California Labor Code for failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
comply with wage statement provisions, failure to provide meal
periods or premium wages, failure to pay all wages owed upon
termination or resignation; violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law; and enforcement of the California Private Attorney
General Act.

On Nov. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint to include a rest break claim and class allegations.  The
Defendant filed a response on Dec. 23, 2020, indicating that it did
not oppose amendment.  The Court entered an order on Jan. 14, 2021,
granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.  The Plaintiff
filed her First Amended Complaint on Jan. 15, 2021.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or strike the First
Amended Complaint on Feb. 5, 2021.  The Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint on Feb. 25, 2021, and the Defendant withdrew its
motion on March 8, 2021.  On March 10, 2021, the Defendant filed
another motion to dismiss, stay, or strike the Second Amended
Complaint.  Its motion is currently pending before District Judge
Dale A. Drozd.

On Feb. 22, 2021, at the parties' request, the Court held an
informal discovery dispute conference regarding the Defendant's
responses to the Plaintiff's requests for production.  After
discussion with the parties at the conference, the Court granted
the Plaintiff permission to file a motion to compel.

On March 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant
to produce documents and electronic data responsive to her Requests
for Production Nos. 1-11, 13-16, 18-20, 22, 23, 24, 25-27, 32, 36,
41, and 46.  Her motion further sought "monetary sanctions" in the
amount of $4,017.60.  In support of the motion, the Plaintiff filed
more than three hundred pages of briefing, declarations, and
exhibits.

On March 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Statement Re:
Discovery Disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251.  The Joint
Statement indicated that the parties had reached an agreement
regarding the majority of their disputes, and the only discovery
requests and responses at issue pertained to Requests for
Production Nos. 1 and 3-5.  It also included approximately twenty
pages of briefing related to requests to which there was no longer
any dispute.

The Plaintiff requests the following documents in native electronic
format for all current and former employees from April 2, 2016,
through the date of production: 1) payroll records, i.e. records
showing the total daily hours worked, gross and net wages earned,
wages paid at all applicable rates of pay, and the name and address
of the employer; 2) time cards/sheets; 3) all documents and
electronically stored information showing the beginning and ending
of each work period; 4) all documents and electronically stored
information showing the beginning and ending of each meal period.
The Defendant objects to these requests on various grounds,
including that they are unduly burdensome.

The Plaintiff contends that she needs a full data set of native,
electronic timekeeping and payroll information in native format to
contrast against non-native time records and ensure that there is
overlap from the sampling of paper records.  She argues that there
is often little or no overlap between electronic data and paper
sampling, and producing a sample instead of full production of
electronic data introduces errors into the production.

Additionally, the Defendant has not articulated how producing a
full data set of native electronic data is any different from
producing a partial sample, and production of a full data set
requires the same amount of work, if not less, than sampling would.
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court award the Plaintiff
sanctions against the Defendant in the amount of $4,017.60 for
being forced to bring this discovery motion.

The Defendant, in turn, argues that "producing company-wide
timekeeping and payroll data would be an enormous strain and burden
on the Defendant's Payroll Department."  Additionally, courts
routinely impose limitations on pre-certification discovery to
minimize burden, including permitting sampling of records.
Sampling also makes sense because that is being done in other
pending wage and hour cases that Defendant contends are related to
this one.  Even if the Court compels the Defendant to produce
company-wide timekeeping and payroll data, its position is
substantially justified and sanctions are not warranted.

On March 26, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion.
Following the hearing, the Court granted the Defendant leave to
file supplemental briefing regarding the burden imposed by the
discovery requests at issue.

On April 5, 2021, the Defendant filed a declaration from John
Verley, its Director of Payroll.  Mr. Verley explained how the
Defendant's timekeeping and payroll software systems work, and the
limitations on data retrieval with each system.  According to Mr.
Verley's declaration, the Defendant's Kronos timekeeping software
can produce reports in PDF or Excel format, but the Excel versions
"do not correctly reflect, and often do not even reflect at all,
the employee's daily time punches" and "tend to be garbled and
difficult to work with."  Mr. Verley's department has been working
with the vendor for years to try to fix the software limitations
but those efforts have been unsuccessful.

The parties do not dispute that the discovery requests at issue are
relevant, and instead disagree as to whether it would be unduly
burdensome for the Defendant to produce a full set of responsive
payroll and timekeeping electronic records in native Excel format
as the Plaintiff requests.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean finds that the information in Mr.
Verley's declaration meets the Defendant's burden of supporting its
objection of undue burden.  The Defendant contends, and the
Plaintiff does not dispute, that the putative class consists of
approximately 7,400 employees.  As explained in John Verley's
declaration, producing the records the Plaintiff seeks in the
requested Excel format for a class of this size is time consuming
and requires significant manual labor to retrieve, format, process,
and manage.

The Plaintiff argues that a full data set is preferred and sampling
is inadequate because electronic sampling often has "little or no
overlap" with paper records, and "introduces errors into the
production that can unintentionally obfuscate the relationships
between the data.

The Court is within its discretion to disregard this filing, which
violates the letter and spirit of that rule.  But even accepting
the Plaintiff's argument, Magistrate Judge Grosjean holds that it
appears that sampling would be sufficient for the issues of class
determination.  Having a relatively small margin of error does not
appear to affect any decision on class certification.  Moreover,
nothing in this order precludes the Plaintiff from moving for
additional records if necessary for another stage of the case.

Also, at this early stage of the proceedings, when a scheduling
order has not yet issued and a motion to dismiss is pending, the
broad discovery the Plaintiff seeks is unduly burdensome and is not
proportional to the needs of the case.  Sampling is an appropriate
method to relieve the burden on the Defendant in light of the
number of employees involved and the limitations of its systems.
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Grosjean orders the Defendant to
produce a representative sample of responsive timekeeping and
payroll records.  The Plaintiff is not precluded from later
requesting additional discovery if doing so is appropriate and
proportional to the needs of the case.

The Plaintiff also moves to compel production of responsive data in
native format.  She says that the term "native" typically refers to
the Excel file format of ".xlsx."  The Defendant argues that
producing timekeeping and payroll data in Excel format is possible,
but not preferable, as the extraction of data from the Kronos
database in Excel format results in severe readability problems.
Mr. Verley's declaration further explains the difficulties in
extracting data from Kronos in Excel, as opposed to PDF, format.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean grants the Plaintiff's motion insofar as
she may choose between formats.  The Defendant has now explained
its view of the advantages and disadvantages of the various
productions.  With the benefit of this information, the Plaintiff
may select the type of production it requests.  In other words, if
despite learning more about the disadvantages of native Excel
production, the Plaintiff nevertheless wishes to receive data in
that format, Defendant must produce the data in that format.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Grosjean denies the Plaintiff's request
for attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the motion.  Additionally,
she declines to apportion expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(C).  The
Plaintiff improperly submitted voluminous records and briefing in
contravention of Local Rule 251.1 See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 251(c).
Likewise, it appears that the Defendant delayed in providing a
detailed explanation of the burden until after the motion was
filed.  Moreover, both parties included briefing in the Joint
Statement about issues fully resolved, which was confusing and
inefficient.  Under the circumstances, each party should bear their
respective costs and fees incurred in connection with the motion
and apportionment of expenses is not appropriate.

Accordingly, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to compel the Defendant to produce documents.  The Defendant
will produce data responsive to the Plaintiff's Requests for
Production Nos. 1 and 3-5.  The Defendant's production will be
limited to a 20% representative sample of putative class members.

The Plaintiff will specify the format it wishes for the production
within seven days of the Order.  She will designate an appropriate
sampling procedure within 30 days from the date of the Order.  The
Defendant must promptly provide assistance in terms of any
necessary information needed to determine the sampling procedure.
It will produce the responsive data within 45 days of the
Plaintiff's designation of the sampling procedure.  If any disputes
arise, the parties will contact the Court to set an informal
discovery dispute conference.

The Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ukt4zvw from Leagle.com.


SWISSTEX CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Wages, Mejia Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SAUL HERNANDEZ MEJIA, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. SWISSTEX CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1 To
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV12242 (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
April 1, 2021) files this complaint against the Defendant pursuant
to the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay him and
other similarly situated current and aggrieved employees, who
worked as hourly, non-exempt employees, minimum wages at the
required minimum rate for all hours they worked. The Defendants
allegedly failed to include all remuneration in calculating the
regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime, thereby
failing to pay them proper overtime wages at one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in excess of
40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide
them complete and accurate wage statements, as well as the required
meal and rest breaks, and to pay meal and rest premium wages at
employees' regular rate of pay. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
timely pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all
wages due at time of termination/resignation, the Plaintiff adds.

Swisstex California, Inc. is a think tanks company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIM, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Tel: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  ppatel@lelawfirm.com
         
                - and –

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Bvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Tel: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Bid for Class Cert. Nixed without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARTLE, on behalf
of herself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
AMERITRADE HOLDINGS CORP., Case No. 20-00166-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order denying motion for
class certification without prejudice.

   "All persons and entities who owned a Scottrade brokerage
   account and received a substitute payment in that account in
   lieu of dividends and/or interest during the time period January

   23, 2010 through February 26, 2018. Excluded from the class are

   all judicial officers presiding over this or any related case.
   The class definition also excludes all shareholders, officers
   and employees of Scottrade and TD Ameritrade."

This case generally involves allegations that Annette and other
customers who operated Scottrade margin accounts were underpaid
because they received "substitute payments" rather than qualified
dividends when their securities were loaned to third parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mZCUtw at no extra charge.[CC]

THEVEGASPACKAGE.COM INC: Court Certifies Class in Fisher TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an order
certifying class and granting request for leave to conduct
discovery in the lawsuit styled Nick Fisher, Plaintiff v.
TheVegasPackage.com, Inc. and Douglas Douglas, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01613-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.).

The Class is defined as:

     All persons in the United States who (1) defendants, or a
     third person acting on behalf of defendants, called; (2) on
     the person's cellular telephone; (3) for the purpose of
     selling Vegas Package's products and services; (4) using an
     auto-dialer as defined in the TCPA; and (5) for whom the
     defendants claim they obtained prior express consent in the
     same manner as the defendants claim they received prior
     express consent to call plaintiff Nick Fisher.

Nick Fisher sues TheVegasPackage.com and its president Douglas
Douglas under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because they
called him--using an autodialer and without his prior, express
consent--to sell a Las Vegas vacation package. The Clerk of Court
entered default against both defendants on December 14, 2020, for
failure to respond or otherwise defend against the action after
they were served.

Mr. Fisher now seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals,
who also received unsolicited calls from Vegas Package and to
conduct limited discovery to ascertain, among other things, the
size and identities of the proposed class and its members. Both
motions are unopposed.

District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey finds that Fisher has met Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s requirements, as well as satisfied
both Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), thus, warranting certification of a
class. The Judge also grants him leave to conduct discovery without
first holding a Rule 26(f) conference.

Judge Dorsey ordered that Nick Fisher will be the class
representative, and Patrick H. Peluso, Esq., and Stephen A. Klein,
Esq., of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, will serve as class counsel.

The Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct discovery is granted.
The Plaintiff has leave to conduct discovery for a period of 120
days and, within 30 days of the close of the discovery period,
plaintiff must file a proposed class-action notice for court
approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2d5phjvp from Leagle.com.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Bluetooth Echo
---------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Toyota Bluetooth echo class action
lawsuit has been filed by an Illinois law firm which alleges the
hands-free phone systems are defective in multiple Toyota models.

The class action alleges when a driver uses Bluetooth to make or
receive calls, the other person hears an echo of their own voice
because of defective hands-free phone head units.

The Toyota lawsuit was filed by an Illinois law firm to represent
all "persons who reside in Illinois who, within the applicable
period of limitations preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the
date of class certification, purchased or leased a 'Class
Vehicle.'"

According to the Bluetooth echo lawsuit, a class vehicle is defined
as a:

"Toyota 4Runner, Avalon, Avalon HV, Camry, Camry HV, Highlander,
Highlander HV, Prius, Prius V, Sequoia, Sienna, Tacoma, Tundra, or
Yaris that (a) was not initially equipped with Apple CarPlay and
(b) has not had a head unit replaced at Toyota's expense."

However, the 2018 Toyota Camry and 2018 Toyota Camry HV are
excluded.

The plaintiff has leased multiple 2019 Toyota Tundras that
allegedly have the Bluetooth echo problems.

The plaintiff claims trying to have a phone conversation is
impossible due to the echo, making the hands-free phone systems
just about useless. The echo is allegedly there no matter who calls
who or whether the person on the other end is using a landline,
cell phone or car phone.

Toyota has allegedly known about the echo issues since at least
2007 because vehicle owner's manuals warn customers an echo may
exist during phone calls. But even though the manuals describe an
echo, the class action alleges Toyota failed to inform customers
about the alleged echo problems prior to selling or leasing the
vehicles.

The Bluetooth class action lawsuit uses an example of the owner's
manual for the 2008 Toyota Highlander.

"If the received call volume is overly loud, an echo may be heard.
Keep the volume of the receiving voice down. Otherwise, voice echo
will increase."

The automaker also issued a 2017 technical service bulletin
(T-SB-0322-17) related to a Bluetooth echo in 2018 Camry and Camry
Hybrid vehicles. The TSB said a phone echo could exist and dealers
could replace the Panasonic head units.

However, the plaintiff says no other Toyota models were included in
the bulletin.

Instead, the Bluetooth echo class action alleges Toyota issued a
"Tech Tip" dated March 9, 2018, with the subject, "Bluetooth Hands
Free Call Echo."

The Tech Tip included these vehicles:

2016-2018 Toyota Highlander
2017-2018 Toyota Avalon
2016-2018 Toyota Sienna
2016-2018 Toyota Prius v
2016-2018 Toyota Tacoma
2016-2018 Toyota Sequoia
2016-2018 Toyota Prius
2016-2018 Toyota Tundra
2017-2018 Toyota Avalon HV
2018 Toyota Yaris
2017-2018 Toyota 4Runner
2016-2018 Toyota Highlander HV

"Some customers may experience echoing on the line calling the
vehicle when using Bluetooth Hands Free. This is caused by the
phone Hands Free volume being too low. These settings may need to
be reapplied any time the phone is paired to a new head unit, a
phone update is applied, or the phone is un-paired and re-paired."

Toyota said a customer should "[i]nitiate a phone call and increase
the volume on the phone to max volume using the volume up button on
the side of the phone, then lower the head unit volume to 45 or
lower."

Then in November 2020 Toyota published Tech Tip T-TT-0600-20 with
the subject, "Bluetooth Hands Free Call Echo," adding model year
2019 Toyota Tacoma, 4Runner, Prius, Highlander, Highlander HV,
Tundra, Sienna and Sequoia vehicles.

According to the Toyota Bluetooth echo lawsuit, the tips allegedly
do nothing to fix the underlying problems in the hands-free phone
systems.

The plaintiff also alleges the Tech Tip instructions "require the
driver to adjust the volume of the phone after the call is
initiated. The driver would therefore have to find the phone, pick
it up and adjust the volume while driving, resulting in a dangerous
distraction."

The Toyota echo class action lawsuit argues that beginning with
certain 2019 models and in all 2020 Toyota models, the automaker
began offering Apple CarPlay which allegedly has no phone echo
problems.

The Toyota Bluetooth echo class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois: Adam B.
Lawler Law Firm, LLC, et al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli,
P.C., the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld, LLC, Arias Sanguinetti
Wang & Torrijos, LLP. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Salo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the lawsuit
captioned SALO, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant,
Case No. 17-1194 (Fed. Cl.).

On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this
case, the Plaintiffs' Original Class Action Complaint. In that
Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege a Fifth Amendment taking of real
and personal property without just compensation by the United
States as a result of the release of water from the Addicks and
Barker Reservoirs. Subsequently, the case was consolidated and
stayed pursuant to Case Management Order Numbers Three and Five,
issued in the Downstream Sub-Master Docket.

On February 18, 2020, the Court issued its Opinion and Order in the
Downstream Sub-Master Docket, granting the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. In that Opinion and Order,
the Court found that neither the State of Texas nor federal law
recognizes a property interest in perfect flood control in the wake
of an Act of God and that an Act of God cannot trigger Fifth
Amendment takings liability.

On March 13, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause,
directing that "any plaintiff with a currently-stayed case that
believes it has a claim that was not resolved by the Court's
February 18, 2020 Opinion and Order will SHOW CAUSE as to why its
case should not be dismissed." The Plaintiffs responded to that
Order on September 17, 2020, and the Defendant filed its Reply on
October 8, 2020.

In their Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, the
Plaintiffs argue the following: (1) the Court cannot enter judgment
against them without a hearing, (2) their property rights are
legally distinguishable from prior plaintiffs, and (3) they can
prove that increased flooding was caused by defendant's design,
construction, and operation of the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs.
In reply, the Defendant argues that the Court's "Show Cause Order
process provided the due process that these plaintiffs now claim is
absent" and, moreover, that the Plaintiffs have "failed to explain
how their case is distinguishable from those already adjudicated in
the Liability Opinion."

After careful review of the record, the Court finds that nothing in
the Plaintiffs' Response satisfies the Court's requirement to
enumerate "how their claim is different from the previously
adjudicated claims, and why the February 18, 2020 Opinion and Order
left that claim unresolved." With the opportunity to respond, the
Plaintiffs reiterate that a taking occurred through the United
States' actions, which "directly and foreseeably caused and
exacerbateed the flooding of plaintiffs' homes and businesses."

While the Plaintiffs purport to present different facts and
theories, their allegations are no different than those already
dismissed by theCourt's Opinion and Order, which was decided based
on the law, not based on the facts, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith
opines. Consequently, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' Response
does not provide the Court a sufficient basis as to "how their case
is legally distinguishable from those already adjudicated," and,
therefore, fails to show why the legal analysis in the Court's
February 18, 2020 Opinion and Order should apply differently to the
Plaintiffs' specific cause of action.

In the case, as in the rest of the Sub-Master Docket, "though the
Court is sympathetic to the losses plaintiffs suffered as a result
of Hurricane Harvey, the Court cannot find the government liable or
find it responsible for imperfect flood control of waters created
by an Act of God." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's case is dismissed.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with
the findings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2pcbxapk from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Denies Tuition Fee Refund, Rivadeneira Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE RIVADENEIRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA and THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendants, Case No.
124849899 (Fla., 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., April 13,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to refund any amount
of tuition fees paid by students for the Spring 2020 semester
following the cancellation of in-person classes on March 11, 2020
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University began the transition
to online only learning and also stopped providing services or
facilities that the tuition and the mandatory fees were intended to
cover. The Defendants' retention of the tuition fees is unjust and
constitutes a breach of contract, the suit adds.

University of South Florida is a public research university with
campuses located in Tampa, St. Peterburg, and Sarasota, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
         Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
         EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
         7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230
         Davie, FL 33314
         Telephone: (954) 889-3359
         Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
         E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                 Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

                - and –

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
         501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com

UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL: Faces Monasterios FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unlimited Electrical
Contractors Corp. et al. The case is captioned as Monasterios, et
al. v. Unlimited Electrical Contractors Corp. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-21092-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2021),

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Unlimited Electrical Contractors Corp. was founded in 1999. The
company's line of business includes providing electrical work and
services.

The Defendants include Nasmax Builders LLC, Nasmax Inc., and Mario
E. De Pinho.[BN]

Plaintiff Adrian M. Monasterios and other similarly situated
individuals are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com



VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT: Faces Suit Due to 'Failures in System'
-----------------------------------------------------------
nbc12.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) for "common
failures" regarding its unemployment insurance system.

This comes more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, which left
hundreds of thousands of Virginians unemployed.

Several legal groups including the Legal Aid Justice Center, Legal
Aid Works and the Virginia Poverty Law Center along with Consumer
Litigation Associates, PC, and Kelly Guzzo, PLC filed the suit
against VEC Commissioner Ellen Marie Hess on behalf of five
plaintiffs.

"When you lose your income, it's the scariest thing on the planet,"
said Ashley Cox, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Many people have praised Cox and the four other women for taking
this action. However, Legal Aid Works attorney Daniel Turczan said
filing the lawsuit was a last resort after trying to work with the
VEC directly.

"Unfortunately, all our efforts apparently failed," he said. "We
were getting the runaround from the VEC for a few months; nothing
essentially changed, so we felt it was finally necessary to file
this suit."

According to a news release by the Legal Aid Justice Center, the
civil lawsuit filed in federal court challenges 'two common VEC
failures':

-- Process and adjudication of applications (Initial claims)
-- Abruptly cut-off benefits that the VEC initially approved
(Continued Claims)

The group believes these measures violate federal and state
unemployment laws, as well as the "due process guarantees of the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

"From November, I had no correspondence from the VEC, other than
the monetary determination that just lets you know what amount you
could be eligible for, and my PIN so I could claim my weeks," Cox
said.

For five months Cox filed claims every week but never received any
money.

The lawsuit states Cox was injured in July 2020 on the job and
eventually asked by her employer to resign in November.

" . . . in which case DBi Services would pay the medical bills
related to the burn she received while working - or being fired.
She chose to resign," the lawsuit reads.

Cox applied for unemployment benefits two days later but has never
been able to get in touch with anyone about the reported
outstanding issue on her claim, until April 14.

That is when she received a text message saying she was
disqualified for certain benefits.

"This is the single most constant fight or flight feeling that I've
ever had in my existence," Cox said. "That's what it is, you're so
proactive and trying to make everything okay and it's just - you're
swimming and getting nowhere."

Four other women named in the lawsuit share similar experiences.
One woman stated she was homeless for nearly four months after her
benefits stopped coming in.

"She currently has housing, but only as a result of temporary
assistance through rent relief programs," the lawsuit said. "She
has relied on food stamps and food banks to have something to eat,
and she has no income other than food stamps."

"I believe this suit will provide maybe some movement with the VEC
to realize that we're serious now," Turczan said. "We're going to
put your feet to the fire and we're going to attempt to get some
relief from the court system."

Attorney said the group is not looking for a "large lump-sum" in
relief, rather, they hope the Court will uphold the evidence
presented and demand the VEC do its job.

However, they are also seeking relief in "the adjudication and
payment of unemployment benefits, a prohibition against further
violations of law and for such declaratory and injunctive relief as
may be appropriate; for attorneys' fees and costs; and for such
other relief the Court does determine just and appropriate."

A spokeswoman for the VEC said it was unable to comment about any
litigation.

However, the Legal Aid Justice Center said it is important to note
the lawsuit does not claim that everyone who files a claim for
unemployment benefits with the VEC is entitled to the money.

"But every Virginian who files a claim for benefits is entitled -
by law - to a prompt response from the VEC," a press release
stated. "And everyone who has begun to receive benefits is entitled
- by law - to continue receiving benefits until a VEC deputy
decides otherwise."

"We have been trying to work with the VEC for months, and we would
greatly prefer to work with them rather than to sue," said Pat
Levy-Lavelle, Attorney at the Legal Aid Justice Center. "But our
suggestions have been rebuffed. And even when the VEC conceded that
we were correct - as it did with the treatment of the continued
claims group - it failed to implement the changes that it conceded
were required. Virginians deserve better than being absolutely last
in the country."

NBC12 reached out to the Governor's Office for comment on the
matter. A spokeswoman released the following statement:

"While we can't comment on pending litigation, Governor Northam is
committed to getting Virginians the benefits they deserve," she
said. "Over the past year, VEC has paid out $13 billion in benefits
to 1.3 million people - more people than over the last 10 years
combined. It's important to remember that not everyone who applies
for benefits will be eligible, and appeals require a longer
process. But despite a record-breaking influx of claims, we are
proud that Virginia is the 6th fastest state in getting benefits
into the hands of eligible workers (according to the US Dept. of
Labor). Like many states, we continue to work day and night to
improve the system."

The U.S. Department of Labor document provided by the Governor's
Office shows Virginia is sixth in the nation, but specifically for
dispersing "all first payments" on 14/21 day timeliness. The
document does not show the rate for dispersing benefits for
continued claims filed.

Meanwhile, Senator Mark Warner recently penned a letter to Northam
following an influx of messages and calls from Virginians dealing
with a lack of response from the VEC. [GN]

VOLUSIA COUNTY PUBLIC: Joins Class Action Vaping Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
fox35orlando.com reports that Volusia County Public Schools will
join a class action lawsuit against vaping product maker Juul and
tobacco company Altria.

More than 250 school districts in 22 states are alleging the
companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices targeted at
school-aged minors.

Attorney William Shinoff with France Law Group out of San Diego has
been litigating the case for 18 months and will represent the
district.

"This is not something that school districts should ever have had
to deal with," said Shinoff.

A 2018 Florida Department of Health survey found one in five high
school students in Volusia County vape.

Shinoff says the lawsuit contends the companies are negligent and
create a public nuisance that harms school districts. Districts are
demanding the companies pay damages.

"The amount of staff time that has been spent dealing with vape
issues. It is a daily issue," Shinoff added, "and if you look at
that, those are taxpayer dollars spent, paying those staff members'
salaries. ."

School board members argue the companies must be held accountable.
There is no cost to the taxpayers for the county joining the suit
-- unless it's successful -- then the attorney takes 20%. [GN]

VOTER APPROVED: Ilboudo Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTAL ILBOUDO, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. VOTER APPROVED LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV11043 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 22, 2021) is a
class action suit pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants misclassifies the
Signature Gatherers as independent contractors, instead of properly
classifying them as employees pursuant to the California Labor
Code. She adds that the Defendants also permits Signature Gatherers
to work in excess of eight (hours per day and/or in excess of 40
hours per week without paying them overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff worked for defendant Voter Approved as a signature
Gatherer from January 1, 2020 through March 22, 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shelley K. Mack, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
          4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 302-8392
          Facsimile: (323) 306-0551
          E-mail: smack@lfecr.com

VROOM INC: Faces Zawatsky Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ZAWATSKY, and CATHERINE ZAWATSKY, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VROOM, INC., PAUL J.
HENNESSY, and DAVID K. JONES, Case No. 1:21-cv-02477 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 22, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Vroom securities between
November 11, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press
release. The Company reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce
Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven
primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements
in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also
reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased
41.9% to $60.7 million."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or
27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to
control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the
demand for its products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiffs purchased Vroom securities during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law
violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.

Vroom operates an end-to-end ecommerce platform that sells fully
reconditioned vehicles. It purports to offer an "exceptional
ecommerce experience" that provides customers with transparent
pricing, real-time financing, and nationwide contact-free delivery.
The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - 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

WEBMD LLC: Marshall Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Marshall v. WebMD LLC, Case
No. 2021-CA-517 (Filed February 8, 2021), was removed from the
Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa) on March 22, 2021.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:21-cv-00683-WFJ-SPF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from personal injury claims. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William F. Jung.

WebMD is an American corporation known primarily as an online
publisher of news and information pertaining to human health and
well-being. The site includes information pertaining to drugs. It
is one of the top healthcare websites by unique visitors. It was
founded in 1998 by internet entrepreneur Jeff Arnold.[BN]

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave Ste 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Traci McKee, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1050 K St NW Ste 400
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 312-7028
          Facsimile: (202) 312-7461
          E-mail: traci.mckee@faegredrinker.com

WELLS FARGO BANK: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Ajasa Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE OLUFUNMILAYO AJASA, Chapter 7, Debtor. IN RE
JOSEPH LOPEZ, Chapter 7, Debtor. OLUFUNMILAYO AJASA AND JOSEPH
LOPEZ, Debtors and Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case Nos. 10-50719-ess, 17-46380-ess, Adversary Case No.
18-01122-ess (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth S. Stong of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Wells
Fargo's motion to strike class allegations, with prejudice.

The Defendant wants class allegations stricken from the Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f),
23(c), and 23(d)(1)(D), as incorporated by Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure 7012 and 7023.

On Nov. 8, 2018, Plaintiff Ajasa commenced the adversary proceeding
by filing a complaint against Wells Fargo, on behalf of herself and
an alleged nationwide class, seeking a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and damages arising out of what she describes as
Wells Fargo's "systematic practice" of violating the discharge
injunction provided by Bankruptcy Code Section 542(a)(2).  Ajasa
states that Wells Fargo violated the discharge injunction by its
practice of failing to update and correct creditor information to
credit reporting agencies to reflect that certain discharged debts
are no longer due and owing, as they have been "discharged in
bankruptcy."  Thereafter, on June 26, 2019, Ms. Ajasa filed an
amended complaint to add Mr. Lopez as an additional plaintiff.

On July 29, 2019, Wells Fargo filed the Motion to Strike the class
allegations in the Amended Complaint.  On Aug. 28, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed opposition to the Motion to Strike.  And on Sept.
13, 2019, Wells Fargo filed a reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition.
On Nov. 5, 2019, Wells Fargo and the Plaintiffs each filed letters
addressing the Fifth Circuit's decision in Crocker v. Navient
Solutions, LLC (In re Crocker), 941 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2019).  And
on June 18, 2020, Wells Fargo and the Plaintiffs each filed letters
addressing the Second Circuit's decision in Belton v. GE Capital
Retail Bank (In re Belton), 961 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2020), cert.
denied, 2021 WL 850624 (U.S. Mar. 8, 2021).

On Sept. 24, 2019, the Court heard arguments from the parties, and
from time to time, including on Feb. 4, 2021, the Court held
continued pre-trial conferences and hearings on the Motion to
Strike, and the record is now closed.

Wells Fargo argues that these class allegations should be stricken
-- now -- because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate discharge violation claims arising from discharge orders
issued outside this District. And it argues that this motion can be
decided -- now -- before the question of class certification is
decided, because "no amount of discovery will alter the analysis of
this purely legal question."

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Ajasa and Joseph Lopez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, claim that
Wells Fargo violated their discharge injunctions by refusing to
correct or update their credit report tradelines to reflect that
their respective debts were discharged in bankruptcy.  They allege
that Wells Fargo's violation of the injunction of Section 524(a)(2)
is widespread and literally nationwide.

And they seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all
individuals who, like them, have received Chapter 7 bankruptcy
discharges and whose credit reports list accounts or debts with
Wells Fargo "that were not reported as discharged despite the fact
that such debts had been discharged as a result of their
bankruptcy."

The matter before the Court is Wells Fargo's Motion to Strike.  Its
Motion to Strike calls for the Court to consider whether the issues
that it identifies are distinct from the issues to be addressed in
the context of class certification -- that is, whether "it is clear
that the motion to strike addresses issues separate and apart from
issues that will be decided on a class certification motion."  If
the questions presented are, in substance, the same as the
questions to be addressed on a motion for class certification, then
they should be deferred until that matter is before the Court, and
addressed in that context.

Wells Fargo's Motion to Strike also calls for the Court to consider
whether it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
Plaintiffs' allegations that seek the certification of a nationwide
class.  Subject matter jurisdiction is foundational, and serves as
the starting point for everything that a federal court can do.
When that question is raised, it must be addressed, and promptly.
Where it is lacking, the Court cannot proceed.

Finally, if subject matter jurisdiction is present, and the issues
identified are distinct from the questions to be addressed in a
motion to certify a class, then the Court must consider whether, at
this stage in these proceedings, it is clear that the Court cannot
entertain this action as a nationwide class, no matter the
definition of the class, the nature of the certification that is
sought, or the evidence.

The Plaintiffs disagree.  They respond first that the Motion to
Strike is untimely and premature, and should be considered at the
time of class certification. Next, they argue that this Court
plainly has subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.  They point to
Judiciary Code Section 1334, which is the source of the Court's --
and every bankruptcy court's -- subject matter jurisdiction "to
adjudicate claims arising under or related to the Bankruptcy Code,"
and Bankruptcy Rule 7023, which permits "the Court, like all
bankruptcy courts, to entertain class actions."  They also dispute
that only the issuing court can adjudicate a discharge injunction
violation claim, and question how, if that is so, one judge within
a district could hear even a district-wide class claim.

Finally, the Plaintiffs disagree with Wells Fargo's interpretation
of recent Second Circuit and Supreme Court decisions, and argue
that those cases either support their position here or do not
address it.

Based on the entire record, Judge Stong finds that Wells Fargo has
not shown that the Plaintiffs' allegations that they seek to be
certified as representatives of a putative nationwide class
designation should be stricken from the Amended Complaint.  The
question of whether a nationwide class, or any class, should be
certified in the action is reserved for another day, to be
considered upon the making of a motion to certify a class by the
Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Stong denied Wells Fargo's Motion To
Strike Class Allegations.  An order in accordance with the
Memorandum Decision shall be entered simultaneously therewith.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvzkcxwr from Leagle.com.

George F. Carpinello, Esq. -- gcarpinello@bsfllp.com -- Adam Shaw,
Esq. -- ashaw@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 30 South
Pearl Street (11th Floor), in Albany, New York 12207, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Olufunmilayo.

Charles Juntikka, Esq., Charles Juntikka & Associates LLP, 30 Vesey
Street (Suite 100), in New York City, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Olufunmilayo Ajasa and Joseph Lopez.

Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq. -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com -- Benjamin J.
Sitter, Esq. -- bsitter@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, 260
Forbes Avenue (Suite 1800), in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222,
Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


WELLS FARGO: Arbitration in Checking Account Overdraft Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No.
19-14097 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirms the district court's order dismissing the claims of
unnamed members of five class actions in favor of individual
arbitration.

The lawsuits are THOMAS LARSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, MELANIE L.
GARCIA, CELIA SPEARS-HAYMOND, DELORES GUTIERREZ, MARC MARTINEZ,
ALEX ZANKICH, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITIBANK FSB, et al.,
Defendants, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., WACHOVIA
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee; MELANIE L. GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee; and
CELIA SPEARS-HAMMOND, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WACHOVIA CORPORATION,
WACHOVIA BANK N.A., Defendants-Appellees.

The Plaintiffs are members of five class actions filed against
Wells Fargo, for itself and its predecessor, Wachovia Bank.  Each
complaint challenges alleged practices of Wells Fargo relating to
overdraft fees.  The Plaintiffs allege that such practices breached
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under their respective
account agreements -- either the Wells Fargo Consumer Account
Agreement or the Wachovia Deposit Agreement.

In relevant part, the Wells Fargo Agreement and the Wachovia
Deposit Agreement contain arbitration clauses.  Notably, the
arbitration clauses require individual, nonclass arbitration of any
disputes concerning the customer's account.  The Wells Fargo
Agreement contains a delegation clause, delegating to the
arbitrator "any disagreement about the meaning of the Arbitration
Agreement, and whether a disagreement is a 'dispute' subject to
binding arbitration as provided for in the Arbitration Agreement.
Both agreements incorporate the American Arbitration Association's
(AAA) Commercial Financial Disputes Arbitration Rules, and in the
case of the Wells Fargo Agreement, the Supplemental Procedures for
Consumer Related Disputes (AAA Rules).

Wells Fargo invoked the arbitration clause from each agreement and
filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the unnamed class members
-- i.e., all members of the certified class other than the named
Plaintiffs -- and compel arbitration.  The Plaintiffs opposed the
motion and argued that the arbitration clauses in the Wells Fargo
and Wachovia Agreements are illusory and unconscionable, and
therefore unenforceable.  The district court rejected the
Plaintiffs' arguments and dismissed the claims of the unnamed class
members without prejudice to the right of any unnamed class member
to bring his or her claim in an individual arbitration according to
the terms of the applicable contract.

With respect to the Wells Fargo Agreement, the district court did
not reach the question of whether the arbitration clause was
illusory and/or unconscionable.  The court found that the
delegation clause delegates to the arbitrator all questions of
arbitrability, including thr Plaintiffs' challenge to the
enforceability of the arbitration clause.  In other words, the
district court determined that it was up to the arbitrator -- not
the court -- to determine whether the parties must arbitrate.
Because the Wachovia Agreement does not contain a delegation
clause, the district court did decide whether the arbitration
clause in the Wachovia Agreement is illusory and/or unconscionable.
Applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court found that it is
neither.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs contest both determinations.  First, they
argue that the district court erred because the delegation clause
in the Wells Fargo Agreement only assigns two arbitrability issues
to the arbitrator -- and the Plaintiffs' challenge to the
enforceability of the agreement is not one of them.  Second, they
argue that the district court improperly took a "one-size-fits-all"
approach when it analyzed the enforceability of the Wachovia
Agreement pursuant to Eleventh Circuit caselaw.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the district court should have conducted a
state-by-state analysis when considering if the arbitration clause
is illusory or unconscionable.  To this end, the Plaintiffs claim
that the district court should have focused on the laws of the
District Columbia and other relevant states where Wells Fargo
conducted business in considering these issues.

The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo a district court's order granting
a motion to compel arbitration.  It also reviews de novo a district
court's interpretation of an arbitration provision.

The Ninth Circuit finds no error on the part of the district court
for two reasons.  First, the delegation clause in the Wells Fargo
Agreement delegates all gateway issues, including the one in the
case, to the arbitrator.  As such, it was not for the district
court to determine whether the agreement is illusory and
unconscionable.  Second, the Wachovia Agreement is neither illusory
nor unconscionable.  There is no need to remand for state-specific
analyses because the Plaintiffs have not shown how state-by-state
analyses would deliver a different result.  Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/e3v35v62 from Leagle.com.


WESTERN EXPRESS: Farrell Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES FARRELL, Plaintiff v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.
DBA WESTERN EXPRESS TRANSPORT OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS2018048, was removed from the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00656 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following claims: failure to pay all
wages owed every pay period; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements; failure to maintain accurate records;
failure to pay all wages due upon separation; failure to compensate
for all hours worked; failure to pay final wages on time; violation
of the California's Unfair Competition Act; unlawful retaliation;
and wrongful termination in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Western Express, Inc. is an asset-based truckload carrier
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee with terminals and facilities
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard D. Marca, Esq.
          Christopher S. Milligan, Esq.
          Ankit H. Bhakta, Esq.
          VARNER & BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Ave., Ste. 610
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274-7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
          E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
                  Chris.Milligan@varnerbrandt.com
                  Ankit.Bhakta@varnerbrandt.com

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso FSCA Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIANA CARDOSO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60784 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act by using a session replay
software to observe how users interact with its website,
whirlpool.com.

Whirlpool Corporation is a multinational manufacturer and marketer
of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township,
Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Alfred J. Saikali, Esq.
         Jennifer A. McLoone, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         Citigroup Center, Suite 3200
         201 S. Biscayne Blvd.
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 358-5171
         E-mail: asaikali@shb.com
                 jmcloone@shb.com

WORLD WRESTLING: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE") during the period from February 7, 2019
through February 5, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
("Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed
Settlement Class, and WWE, Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios,
and Michelle D. Wilson (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class
action (the "Action") in the amount of $39,000,000 (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, either
in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on June 15, 2021,
at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14B of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 22, 2020;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement, www.WWESecuritiesSettlement.com, or
by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         WWE Securities Litigation
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 6389
         Portland, OR 97228-6389
         800-817-4526

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
         E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com
         Tel No: 888-219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than June 10,
2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than May 25, 2021. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than May 25, 2021.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.


DATED: April 5, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

URL : http://labaton.com

Contact Information:
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877 [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***