/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210421.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 74

                            Headlines

135 BROWN PLACE: Sperro Fabrications Files Suit in New York
3D SYSTEMS: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
3D SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 9 Deadline
ALL-CLAD: Egidio Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ALL-CLAD: Murray Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania

AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
ARSTRAT LLC: Marchese Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASCAP: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
BELLUS HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BILL'S HEATING: Wolthers Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class

CAM PIZZA: Novick Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
CANAAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CANAAN INC: Kehoe Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CANAAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline

CANAAN INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CETTIRE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 9 Deadline
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hammett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio

CHRISTOPHER HANKINS: Mitchem Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
CITICORP CREDIT: Adoni Files Suit in Eastern District of New York
COMPLETE COLLECTION: Chames Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
CORECIVIC: Reaches $56MM Class Action Settlement, Shares Climb
CYTODYN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline

D & R PIZZA: Gottberg Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EBIX INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: Dotstrategy Seeks to Certify Class

FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
GARTNER STUDIOS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GEICO GENERAL: Class Status of Health Care Providers Sought

GOOD DYE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GRAMR INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRANDARI INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces Chassen FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
IC SYSTEM: Faces Dhas Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania

INTEGRATED RESOURCES: Faces Hussaini Suit in California State Ct.
J. JACOBO: Class Notice & Distribution Plan in Gomez Suit Approved
J.P. MORGAN: Court Affirms Dismissal of Second Amended Frankel Suit
JOEY TOMATO'S: Facing $17M Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Outbreak in Canada
KANGMEI PHARMACEUTICAL: China Launches First Class-Action Lawsuit

KOUFUKU LLC: Kataoka Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
LABORATORY CORP: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LIFEMD INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
LOANCARE LLC: Jurisdictional Question Briefing in Pritchard Ordered
MARYLAND: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Coronavirus Cases

MAYO CLINIC: Baum Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
MCKESSON CORP: Court OKs Evanston Police's Class Status Bid
MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foams Product Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
MDL 2988: 4 Cookware Product Disputes Transferred to W.D. Pa.
MINDVALLEY INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MONROE TOWNSHIP: Faces Joanna Suit in District of New Jersey
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
NORTLITE LLC: Hill Suit Removed to North District of New York
OBVIOUS WINES: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Adkins Suit Removed to District of Oregon

PARTNER COMMS: Litigation Over Voicemail Service Charges Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Putative Class Suit Over Anti-Virus Service Underway
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement Agreement Filed in SMS Charges Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Smartbox Purchaser Class Suit Underway
PARTNER COMMS: Suit Over Free Content Filtering Services Ongoing

PATTERN BEAUTY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PNC BANK: Illegally Collects Unearned GAP Waiver Fees, Jones Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lichtinger Alleges Deceptive Toothpaste Marketing
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Petrosyan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida

ROMEO POWER: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Duban Seeks Refund for Canceled Flight
SDI INTERNATIONAL: Conditional Certification of Collectives Sought
SECOND ROUND: Ford FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
SELECT SEEDS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SOIL BASICS: Faces Lira Employment Suit in California State Ct.
SQUARE ONE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STREET INSIDER: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SYMMETRY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Price Increases

SYMMETRY ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit for Excessive Natural Gas Pricing
TASTY GREENS: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TENNESSEE: Automated Messages Lead to TCPA Class Action
TRY TREATS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TULSA FEDERAL: Faces Kirk Suit Over Withdrawal Courtesy Pay Fees

TYSON FOODS: Northern District of Texas Tosses Martinez FLSA Suit
UNIFIN INC: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Middle District of Florida
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Court Consolidates Martinez With 2 Suits
VB BEAUTY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VIRGINIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Unemployment Benefits Issues

VROOM INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
WALMART INC: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
WASHINGTON: Inmates Seek Provisional Class Certification
WELLS FARGO: Patel Files Suit in Southern District of Ohio
WICHITA, KS: Progeny Files Suit in District of Kansas


                            *********

135 BROWN PLACE: Sperro Fabrications Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 135 BROWN PLACE
PARTNERS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as SPERRO FABRICATIONS,
INC., FOR ITSELF AND FOR ALL OTHER LIENORS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
135 BROWN PLACE PARTNERS, LLC , VESCOM SYSTEMS, LLC, CPC FUNDING
SPE1 LLC, CRANES EXPRESS INC., INFRA-METALS CO., AND ABC CORP 1-10,
SAID DEFENDANTS INTENDED TO REPRESENT UNKNOWN COMPANIES WHO MAY
HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE PREMISES, Case No. 800505/2021 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Bronx Cty., April 15, 2021).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT."

135 BROWN PLACE PARTNERS LLC is a company located in Brooklyn, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PAUL T. VINK, PC
          200 MAMARONECK AVE., STE. 500
          WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 262-3584

The Defendants are represented by:

          ROSENBERG & STEINMETZ
          181 S FRANKLIN AVE. STE. 103
          VALLEY STREAM, NY 11581
          Phone: (212) 743-9904

               - and -

          ZISHOLTZ & ZISHOLTZ
          Phone: (516) 741-2200


3D SYSTEMS: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of 3D Systems Corporation (NYSE: DDD)
investors that acquired shares between May 6, 2020 and March 1,
2021. Investors have until June 8, 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.

3D Systems issued a press release on March 1, 2021 advising
investors that it would delay the filing of its annual report on a
Form 10-K. 3D systems stated that "the delay in filing is primarily
related to the presentation of cash flows associated with the
divestiture process for its Cimatron and GibbsCam software
businesses." 3D Systems also stated that they had identified
"certain internal control deficiencies" and that, as a result, it
would "report material weaknesses in internal controls in its
fiscal 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K." 3D Systems filed a NT-10-K
with the SEC on March 2, 2021, which statec that their 10-K filing
would be delayed. On this news, 3D Systems' stock price declined by
$7.62 per share, or more than 19.6%, on this news, from closing at
$38.79 per share on March 1, 2021 to close at $31.17 per share on
March 2, 2021, damaging investors. The lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants made misleading and/or false
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D Systems lacked
the proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) 3D
Systems' public statements were materially false and/or misleading
at all relevant times, as a result.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
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]

3D SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 9 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 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE:DDD) publicly traded
securities between May 6, 2020 to March 1, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Kehoe v. 3D Systems Corp., No.
21-cv-01920, and is assigned to Judge Nicholas Garaufis. The 3D
Systems class action lawsuit charges 3D Systems 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 3D Systems publicly traded securities during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the 3D
Systems 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 3D Systems class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the 3D
Systems class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the 3D Systems class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff of the 3D Systems class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the 3D Systems class
action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact
counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the 3D Systems class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than June 9, 2021.

3D Systems provides 3D printing and digital manufacturing
solutions, including 3D printers for plastics and metals,
materials, software, on-demand manufacturing services, and digital
design tools.

The 3D Systems class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 3D Systems lacked proper
internal controls over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result,
3D Systems' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2021, 3D Systems announced that it would "delay filing
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2020." In doing so, 3D Systems revealed that "the delay in
filing is primarily related to the presentation of cash flows
associated with the divestiture process for its Cimatron and
GibbsCam software businesses." 3D Systems further disclosed that
"[i]n the course of preparing its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year 2020, [3D Systems] discovered certain
internal control deficiencies" and that "[a]s a result, [3D
Systems] will report material weaknesses in internal controls in
its fiscal 2020 Annual Report on Form 10-K." On this news, 3D
Systems' stock price fell by nearly 20%, 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]

ALL-CLAD: Egidio Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carol Egidio, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. All-Clad
Metalcrafters, LLC, Groupe Seb, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-12025, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00506-NR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC is a U.S. manufacturer of cookware with
headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP - NC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5003
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: harper@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          16748 McCormick St
          Encino, CA 91436-1020
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth B. Walton, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          One International Place, Suite 350
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (857) 313-3936
          Email: ken.walton@lewisbrisbois.com


ALL-CLAD: Murray Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miranda Murray, Brandi Milford, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC, Groupe Seb, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00095, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00507-NR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC is a U.S. manufacturer of cookware with
headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP - NC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5003
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 harper@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.-T.FL
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 222-2434
          Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Franklin P. Brannen, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4700
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Phone: (404) 348-8585
          Email: frank.brannen@lewisbrisbois.com


AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Amdocs Limited (DOX)
Class Period: 12/13/2016 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 8, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-dox/

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

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

                         About KSF

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

ARSTRAT LLC: Marchese Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Christopher Marchese, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02107 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2021).

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

ARstrat -- https://arstrat.com/ -- provides pre-litigation and
account litigation services for successful resolutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
          445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 210-7272
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com


ASCAP: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander C. Baker; All
other similarly situated Songwriters; Adam Bravery LLC; All other
similarly situated Royalty Assignees, v. American Society of
Composers, Authors And Publishers, aka ASCAP; Broadcast Music,
Inc., aka BMI; Mike O'Neil; Erika Stallings; and Does 1-10, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00022-RM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the proposed classes:

   --The Songwriter Class defined as:

     "all writer members of ASCAP and all writer members of BMI";

   --The Assignee Class, defined as:

     "all individuals or entities who are entitled to receive
ASCAP
     and/or BMI writer royalties by virtue of a valid royalty
     assignment contract."

According to the complaint, ASCAP & BMI enter into license
agreements with music users such as television networks, radio
stations, nightclubs, and various other live and online
entertainment venues where music is heard. ASCAP & BMI charge a
license fee in exchange for granting the right to publicly
"perform" the music written and published by its members. ASCAP &
BMI collect over $2 billion in license fees each year.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dvGIzz
at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs and proposed Classes are:

          G. Scott Sobel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF G. SCOTT SOBEL
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158
          Telephone: (310) 422-7067
          Facsimile: (888) 863-5630
          E-mail: GScottSobel@gmail.com

BELLUS HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 17, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired BELLUS Health Inc. ("BELLUS" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLU) securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your BELLUS 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/bellus-health-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.

BELLUS is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead
product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of
chronic cough and other afferent hypersensitization-related
disorders.

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

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

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, the complaint alleges that Defendants
knew, but failed to disclose, that while BLU-5937's "high
selectivity" contributed to the drug causing little to no taste
alteration in chronic cough patients, that high selectivity also
contributed to the drug potentially being less efficacious and thus
likely not be able to meet the primary endpoint of the Company's
Phase 2 trial.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired BELLUS securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

BILL'S HEATING: Wolthers Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN WOLTHERS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. BILL'S HEATING AIR APPLIANCE REPAIR, LLC, an Idaho Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00504-BLW (D. Idaho), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Preliminary
Certification of this FLSA Collective Class Action, and a Limited
Tolling of Statute of Limitations.

The collective class is defined as:

   "current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant
Bill's
   Heating, who had 30 minutes of work deducted from their pay by
   Defendant Bill's Heating for each six hour work period despite
   not receiving bona fide meal periods, and were thereby not paid

   for all hours worked for Defendant Bill's Heating, including but

   not limited to failure to pay for straight time worked, and
   failure to pay for overtime hours of at least one and one-half
   times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of

   40 hours in a week."

This action has been brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), to recover unpaid straight time worked and overtime
compensation owed to the the Plaintiff Wolthers and all similarly
situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed as
hourly non-exempt employees by Bill's Heating.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n5ncNG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kammi Mencke Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Gingras, Esq.
          WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS
          250 Northwest Boulevard, Suite 206
          Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
          Telephone: (208) 667-2103
          Facsimile: (208) 765-2121
          E-mail: kms@winstoncashatt.com
                  sag@winstoncashatt.com

CAM PIZZA: Novick Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cam Pizza, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Johnny Novick, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons v. Cam Pizza, LLC, Calvin E. Barcomb,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01017-SOH (W.D. Ark., April 16, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cam Pizza is a restaurant located in Denham Springs, Los
Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street #210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Email: matthew@foresterhaynie.com


CANAAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Canaan Inc. ("Canaan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CAN)
from February 10, 2021, through April 9, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Canaan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Canaan 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: (1) Canaan had experienced
significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during the 4Q20; (ii)
that the introduction of Canaan's next-generation A12 series
bitcoin mining machines had cannibalized sales of the older product
offerings during the 4Q20; (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Canaan's 4Q20 sales and sales revenue had declined dramatically;
and (iv) that as a result of the foregoing Canaan was not on track
to achieve the strong financial prospects it had led the market to
believe.

On April 12, 2021, before the opening of trading, Canaan issued a
press release disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results
for the period ended December 31, 2020. On this news, the market
price of Canaan ADRs collapsed from their close $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, or more than three times the average daily
volume over the preceding ten trading days.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 14 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 Canaan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/canaaninc-can-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-391/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]


CANAAN INC: Kehoe Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Canaan Inc. ("Canaan" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CAN) to determine whether the Company engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

On April 15, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of
Canaan investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Canaan's
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs") between February 10, 2021 and
April 9, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the class action complaint, 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 sales and net revenues had significantly
declined.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE COMPANY'S ADRs
DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000
ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, CLIENT RELATIONS,
(215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.  

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) ("Canaan") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Canaan American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canaan ADRs during the Class Period may, no later than June 14,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/canaan-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=canaan

Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines,
primarily in the Peoples Republic of China.

The Class Period commences on February 10, 2021, when Canaan issued
a press release claiming that Canaan's "revenue visibility has
improved substantially in 2021 as a result of attaining purchase
orders totaling more than 100,000 units of bitcoin mining machines
from customers in North America. Many of those purchase orders were
placed with prepayment and will likely occupy [Canaan]'s current
manufacturing capacity entirely for the full year of 2021 and
beyond."

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants concealed that due to
ongoing supply chain disruptions and the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines, Canaan's fourth
quarter 2020 sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year
compared to its fourth quarter 2019 sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter 2020 sales.

According to the complaint, on April 12, 2021, before the opening
of trading, Canaan issued a press release disclosing its actual
fourth quarter 2020 and fiscal year 2020 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.

Following this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs fell 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 alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Canaan had
experienced significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during the
fourth quarter 2020; (2) the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines had cannibalized
sales of the older product offerings during the fourth quarter
2020; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Canaan's fourth quarter
2020 sales and sales revenues had declined dramatically; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Canaan was not on track to achieve the
strong financial prospects it had led the market to believe.

Canaan investors may, no later than June 14, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CANAAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) between February 10, 2021
and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 14, 2021.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Canaan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2078.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 14, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Canaan had experienced
significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during the 4Q20; (2)
the introduction of Canaan's next-generation A12 series bitcoin
mining machines had cannibalized sales of the older product
offerings during the 4Q20; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Canaan's 4Q20 sales and sales revenues had declined dramatically;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing Canaan was not on track to
achieve the strong financial prospects it had led the market to
believe.

To join the Canaan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2078.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210416005402/en/
[GN]

CANAAN INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Canaan Inc.
("Canaan" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CAN) 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 February
10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 14, 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. Canaan experienced ongoing supply chain
problems in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Company's new A12
series bitcoin mining machines cannibalized the sales of its older
equipment in the same period. The Company's sales and revenues fell
sharply for the quarter as a result. 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 Canaan, 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]

CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Canoo Inc. (GOEV, GOEVW)
Class Period: 8/18/2020 - 3/29/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 1, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goev/

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

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

                        About KSF

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

CETTIRE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cettire, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Cettire, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02065 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021).

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

Cettire -- https://www.cettire.com/ -- is an online destination
exclusively for luxury fashion who sell a huge range of
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 9 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 Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Champignon
Brands, Inc. (Other OTC: SHRMF) securities between March 27, 2020
and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until June 9, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Click https://www.bespc.com/cases/SHRMF to participate in the
action.

On February 17, 2021, Champignon issued a press release entitled
"Champignon Brands to Restate Financial Statements and MD&A has
Prepared CSE Listing Statement".

On this news, Champignon's stock price fell 10% to close at $0.687
per share on February 17, 2021.

The complaint, filed on April 10, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Champignon had undisclosed
material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2)
Champignon's previously issued financial statements were false and
unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported financial statements
would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's acquisitions involved
an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and
subsequent reporting delays and issues, the British Columbia
Securities Commission would suspend Champignon's from trading; and
(6) as a result, defendants' statements about Champignon's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

If you purchased Champignon securities 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. [GN]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Hammett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter
Communications, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly S. Hammett,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Charter Communications, Inc. doing business as: Spectrum, Case No.
1:21-cv-00815 (N.D. Ohio, April 16, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act/Junk Fax Prevention Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


CHRISTOPHER HANKINS: Mitchem Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Donnell L. Mitchem, individually, and as a
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Christopher Hankins, Former Jailer Grant County Detention Center;
John Tilley, Former Secretary Kentucky Justice and Public Safety
Cabinet; James Erwin, Former Deputy Commissioner Kentucky
Department of Corrections; Kimberly Potter-Blair, Former Deputy
Commissioner Kentucky Department of Corrections; Case No.
20-CI-00236 was removed from the Grant Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on April 15,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00053-DLB-EBA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Christopher Hankins --
https://grantcountynm.gov/departments/corrections/ -- is the former
jailer grant county detention center.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          807 W Market St
          Louisville, KY 40202-2625
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Phone: (646) 783-9810
          Email: peterj@bsjfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Mando, Esq.
          ADAMS LAW, PLLC
          40 W. Pike Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Phone: (859) 394-6200
          Fax: (859) 392-7263
          Email: jmando@adamsattorneys.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Lilly, Esq.
          KY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - General Counsel
          P.O. Box 2400
          Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
          Phone: (502) 782-2299
          Fax: (502) 564-5037
          Email: richard.lilly@ky.gov

               - and -

          Chris J. Gadansky, Esq.
          James Eugene McKiernan, III, Esq.
          McBRAYER PLLC – Louisville
          500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (502) 327-5400
          Fax: (502) 327-5444
          Email: cgadansky@mcbrayerfirm.com
                 jmckiernan@mcbrayerfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel Luke Morgan, Esq.
          McBRAYER PLLC – Lexington
          201 E. Main Street, Suite 900
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 231-8780
          Fax: (859) 281-6480
          Email: lmorgan@mmlk.com


CITICORP CREDIT: Adoni Files Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citicorp Credit
Services, Inc. (USA). The case is styled as Jacob Adoni,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Celestial Seasonings, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02108 (E.D.N.Y., April
18, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/-- is
located in Irving, Texas and is part of the Financial Transaction
Processing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


COMPLETE COLLECTION: Chames Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Complete Collection Service
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Melissa Sharon Chames,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Complete Collection Service Corp., John Does 1-25, Case No.
4:21-cv-00304 (E.D. Tex., April 15, 2021).

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

Complete Collection Services --
http://www.completecollectionservices.net/-- strives to provide
optimal collection services to all clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC: Reaches $56MM Class Action Settlement, Shares Climb
--------------------------------------------------------------
What's going on with CXW?
CoreCivic (CXW) stock was up 3.5% after the company agreed to
settle a securities class action lawsuit for $56 million. CXW
shares were trading at $8.43 on Friday afternoon.

What does it mean for CoreCivic?
The settlement brings to a close litigation that dates back four
years, when CoreCivic (CXW) and its current and former officers
were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee over the company's stock price decline on the heels of a
Aug. 18, 2016 memorandum from the Department of Justice instructing
the Federal Bureau of Prisons to phase out private prisons.

The reached settlement preempts a jury trial that had been set to
begin May 10.

"We are pleased to resolve this matter and put it behind us in
order to focus on the company's business," said Damon Hininger,
CoreCivic's President and CEO. "While we continue to believe the
allegations in this case were without merit, we also believe that
eliminating the risk, cost and distraction related to the
litigation is in the best interest of CoreCivic and its
shareholders."

CoreCivic Inc is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. It provides solutions
to government partners that serve the public good through
corrections and detention management, a network of residential
reentry centers to help address America's recidivism crisis, and
government real estate solutions. The company is an owner of
partnership correctional, detention, and residential reentry
facilities, and also the private owner of real estate used by U.S.
government agencies. The company has been a flexible and dependable
partner for the government for more than thirty-five years. [GN]

CYTODYN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of CytoDyn Inc. ("CytoDyn") (OTCQB: CYDY) between March
27, 2020 and March 9, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytodyn-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14779&wire=5

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

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

If you suffered a loss in CytoDyn you have until May 17, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

D & R PIZZA: Gottberg Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER GOTTBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & R PIZZA, INC. and DONALD
PROUSE, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01747 (E.D. Pa., April 14,
2021) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
a class action under Pennsylvania Annotated Statutes to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.

The lawsuit alleges that instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
approximation of the expenses they incur. As a result, the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants from December
2020 to January 2021 as a delivery driver at Domino's stores
located in Manheim, Pennsylvania.

The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's franchise store
including stores within the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: EBON)
between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 7, 2021.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ebang class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2075.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 7, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the proceeds from Ebang's
public offerings had been directed to a low yield, long term bonds
to an underwriter and to related parties rather than used to
develop the Company's operations; (2) Ebang's sales were declining
and the Company had inflated reported sales, including through the
sale of defective units; (3) Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (5) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Ebang class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2075.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

EBIX INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Ebix, Inc.
("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EBIX) between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than April 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Ebix investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Ebix Securities Class Litigation

Ebix, headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia, supplies
infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial, travel, cash
remittances, and healthcare industries. The action alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that (1)
there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain transactions in Ebix's gift card business in
India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material
weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift or prepaid
revenue transaction cycle; and (3) Ebix's independent auditor was
likely to resign over disagreements with the Company over $30
million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account
of Ebix's outside legal counsel.

On February 19, 2021, following the close of the market, Ebix
announced the sudden resignation of its independent auditor, RSM US
LLP ("RSM"), which had been "unable, despite repeated inquiries, to
obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to
evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions
that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020." These "significant
unusual transactions" were connected to Ebix's gift card business
in India which was a critical part of Ebix's portfolio. In
addition, RSM disclosed that "management did not design or
implement the necessary procedures and controls over the gift or
prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or
detect a material misstatement." The Company and RSM also allegedly
disagreed over whether to classify $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel in December 2020 as cash on Ebix's balance sheet. On this
news, Ebix's stock price fell $20.24 per share, or approximately
40%, from its closing price of $50.74 on February 21, 2021, to
close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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

EBIX INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix") (NASDAQ: EBIX) between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 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/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14782&wire=5

Allegations against EBIX include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift
card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there
was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over the
gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) the Company's
independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over
disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Ebix you have until April 23, 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. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Dotstrategy Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOTSTRATEGY, CO.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons or entities within the United States who, from
      December 1, 2013, to the present ("Class Period"), paid
      Facebook for advertising based on impressions delivered to or

      actions generated through fake Facebook accounts. Excluded
      from the Class are the Defendant, and its subsidiaries and
      affiliates; its current and former officers, directors, and
      employees (and members of their immediate families); and the

      legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any of

      the foregoing;"

   2. appointing itself, dotStrategy, Co., as class representative;

      and

   3. appointing Cera LLP and the David Hodges Law Firm as class
      counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Facebook has for many years collected enormous sums of  advertising
revenue from its customers, the class members, based on
interactions they had with accounts Facebook knows are fake. the
Facebook has not refunded these monies notwithstanding its clear
promise to do so. This action seeks to recover as restitution these
amounts paid to Facebook.

Facebook is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v3PD15
at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com

               - and -

          David A. Hodges, Esq.
          THE DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM
          212 Center Street, 5 th Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.coms

FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of June 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Gutman v. FibroGen, Inc.,
et al., (Case No. 3:21-cv-02725) on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen Inc. ("FibroGen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN) securities between November 8, 2019
and April 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until June 11, 2021 to
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your FibroGen 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/fibrogen-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 or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for
the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. Its most
advanced product is roxadustat, an oral small molecule inhibitor of
hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase ("HIF-PH") activity
that acts by stimulating the body's natural pathway for red cell
production. In December 2019, the Company filed its New Drug
Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for the approval of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia
due to chronic kidney disease ("CKD").

On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a
statement "provid[ing] clarification of certain prior disclosures
of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat
Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of chronic kidney
disease (‘CKD')." Specifically, the Company stated that the
safety analyses "included post-hoc changes to the stratification
factors." FibroGen further revealed that, based on analyses using
the pre-specified stratification factors, the Company "cannot
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."

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 unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain safety analyses submitted in connection
with FibroGen's NDA for roxudustat included post-hoc changes to
stratification factors; (2) that, based on analyses using the
pre-specified stratification factors, the Company could not
conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of major adverse
cardiovascular events compared to epoetin-alfa; (3) 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 (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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 11,
2021 ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

FIBROGEN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

FibroGen, Inc. (FGEN)
Class Period: 11/8/2019 - 4/6/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 11, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fgen/

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

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

                           About KSF

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

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Ali v. Franklin Wireless
Corp., et al., on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Franklin Wireless Corp. ("Franklin" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FKWL) securities between September 17, 2020 and
April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Franklin 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/franklin-wireless-corp/. 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 or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

Franklin purports to be a leading provider of intelligent wireless
solutions such as mobile hotspots, routers, trackers, and other
devices.

On April 1, 2021, Franklin stated that it "ha[d] been notified of
reports of battery issues in some of its wireless hotspot device."
It also stated that the Company was "working with its battery and
device manufacturing partners and carrier customer to determine the
cause and extent of the problem."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35, or 1.65%, to
close at $20.77 per share on April 5, 2021, the next trading
session, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 8, 2021, media reported that Verizon Wireless is recalling
certain hotspot devices. According to CNBC, Verizon "is recalling
2.5 million hotspot devices after discovering that the lithium ion
battery can overheat, creating a fire and burning hazard."
Moreover, the "recall impacts Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspots
imported by Franklin Wireless Corp and sold between April 2017 and
March 2021."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.82, or 14%, to
close at $17.33 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On April 9, 2021, Franklin stated that its customer Verizon
Wireless "has issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot
devices imported by Franklin." The Company stated that "[a]t this
time, fewer than 20 report of trouble have been received with over
2 million devices in [sic] sold over the last three and a half
years."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.07, or nearly 23%,
to close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 Franklin's hotspot devices suffered from
battery issues, including overheating, thereby presenting a fire
hazard; (2) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that the
Company's customers would recall Franklin's devices; (3) that, as a
result, Franklin would suffer reputational harm; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

GARTNER STUDIOS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gartner Studios, LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Gartner Studios, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02110 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2021).

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

Gartner Studios, Inc. -- https://www.gartnerstudios.com/ -- is a
leader in print and social stationery, greeting card, licensed
digital design, party goods, print-at-home and personalized
stationery, and event supplies throughout North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GEICO GENERAL: Class Status of Health Care Providers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY ROSENBERG, D.C.,
P.A., as assignee of Danielle Russell, and on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 0:19-cv-61422-AMC (S.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action under Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and/or 23(c)(4), on
      behalf of the "Class" and "Class Members" defined as:

      "All health care providers, who within the applicable
      statutes of limitations, through the date of filing this
      lawsuit (the "Class Period"), received an assignment of
      benefits from a claimant and thereafter, pursuant to that
      assignment, submitted claims for no-fault benefits under
      GEICO's Policies to which Endorsement FLPIP (01-13) applies,

      and any subsequent Policies with substantially similar
      language, where according to GEICO's records, with the claim

      (1) the provider submitted a bill for services under a CPT
      Code listed in the participating physicians fee schedule of
      Medicare Part B; (2) the billed amount for the service was
      less than 200% of the amount listed under the participating
      physicians fee schedule of Medicare Part B; (3) GEICO
      utilized the "BA" as a reason code relating to the payment of

      the claim; and (4) GEICO paid the provider based on 80% of
      the amount billed;"

   2. appointing its counsel as class counsel, under Rule 23(g);
      and

   3. appointing itself as Class Representative.

The same legal issue litigated here has already been certified for
class treatment and adjudicated on the merits in a class
representative's favor. See A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO
Gen. Ins. Co., 321 F.R.D. 688 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (class
certification); A & M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO Gen. Ins.
Co., 291 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (summary judgment on
declaratory judgment claim on "BA" issue, later vacated and
remanded to state court for lack of Article III standing by A&M
Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 925 F.3d 1205 (11th
Cir. 2019)).

The facts of this case are straightforward, and the legal issues
are simple. The Plaintiff brings a single claim against GEICO for
breach of contract, requesting that this Court certify a class and
resolve finally the Parties' long-standing dispute over the meaning
of the language in GEICO's Policy (as was already done in Gerber).

As in Gerber, this case boils down to a contested interpretation of
one provision in the Defendant's form personal injury protection
insurance policy and whether the Policy language provides an extra
20% in coverage for the billed amount. Each Class Member is a
healthcare provider that submitted an insurance claim to GEICO
under its form insurance contract (i.e., the Policy), which since
2013, has incorporated Medicare Part B and other fee schedules
contained in Florida's No-Fault Statute.

GEICO's Policy endorsement since 2013 has uniformly contained a
provision expressed underneath the fee schedules listed in the
Policy, stating, "[a] charge submitted by a Provider for an amount
less than the amount allowed above shall be paid in the amount of
the charge submitted."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gpfbl3
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Michael T. Lewenz, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mlewenz@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Alec Schultz, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 630-8304
          E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter D. Weinstein, Esq.
          Thomas Hunker, Esq.
          Michael Rosenberg, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE PA
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 500
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 473-1112
          E-mail: Peter.Weinstein@csklegal.com
                  Thomas.Hunker@csklegal.com
                  Michael.Rosenberg@csklegal.com

GOOD DYE: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Dye Young, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Good Dye
Young, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02087 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

Good Dye Young -- https://gooddyeyoung.com/ -- is a vibrant,
semi-permanent vegan and cruelty free hair dye company started by
Hayley Williams and Celebrity Hair Stylist Brian O'Connor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GRAMR INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gramr, Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gramr, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03329-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021).

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

Gramr Inc., doing business as Causebox --
https://shop.causebox.com/subscribe -- is a greeting card
subscription box company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRANDARI INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GrandAri, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
GrandAri, Inc., Luxe Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02092
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

GrandAri, Inc. is currently Ariana Grande's trademark registrator.
Luxe Brands -- https://www.luxebrands.com/ -- is a prestige beauty
company dedicated to developing and distributing world-class beauty
brands that inspire consumers globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces Chassen FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc.
The case is captioned as CHASSEN v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-06393-KM-ESK (D.N.J., March 23, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNultyNature.

Hunter Warfield is a third-party collection agency headquartered in
Tampa, Florida. Since 2004, Hunter Warfield has provided effective
collection services for its clients in the multifamily, commercial,
and funeral industries.[BN]

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

          Ben A. Kaplan
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

IC SYSTEM: Faces Dhas Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System Inc. The
case is captioned as DHAS v. IC SYSTEM INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01385-PBT (E.D. Pa., March 23, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Petrese B. Tucker.

IC System is the leader in accounts receivable management.[BN]

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

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
          1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351-0200
          Facsimile: (215) 827-5403
          E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com

INTEGRATED RESOURCES: Faces Hussaini Suit in California State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Resources,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Ahmad Zubair Hussaini v.
Integrated Resouces, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No.
34-2021-00297152-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 23,
2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issues.

Integrated Resources is a staffing and recruiting company that
provides healthcare and life sciences staffing services.

The Defendants includes Does 1-100; Integrated Resouces, Inc., a
California Corporation; and Siemens Mobility, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly situated employees,
is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd Ste 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com

J. JACOBO: Class Notice & Distribution Plan in Gomez Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARISOL GOMEZ and IGNACIO OSORIO, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J. JACOBO
FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Parties' stipulation on the
class notice and the distribution plan.

Judge Ishii, on Feb. 8, 2021, issued an order requiring the Parties
to amend the class notice in a manner consistent with the order.
The Parties have met and conferred and agreed upon a proposed Class
Notice and have agreed on a Spanish translation.

The Parties stipulated as follows and respectfully request the
Court adopts as an order:

      1. The Court finds that the revised Class Notice attached as
Exhibits A and B provides appropriate notice of the certified class
claims in the matter.

      2. The Court orders the Defendant to provide the Class List
within 10 days of the Order.

      3. Once the Class List is obtained, the Class Action
Administrator can distribute the Class Notice within 20 days of the
receipt of the Class List and finalized notice documents.

      4. Each class member will have 45 days to exclude himself or
herself from the class action.

Judge Ishii so ordered.

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

STAN S. MALLISON -- stanleym@themmlawfirm.com -- HECTOR R. MARTINEZ
-- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- NATALIA RAMIREZ LEE --
nramirezlee@themmlawfirm.com -- MALLISON & MARTINEZ, in Oakland,
California.

MARIO MARTINEZ -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- EDGAR I.
AGUILASOCHO -- eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTIŃEZ,
AGUILASOCHO, & LYNCH, in Bakersfield, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

Michael J.F. Smith -- mjfsmith@mjfsmith.com -- John L. Migliazzo --
jmigliazzo@mjfsmith.com -- A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, in Fresno,
California, Attorneys for Defendant.


J.P. MORGAN: Court Affirms Dismissal of Second Amended Frankel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY S. FRANKEL, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, BERNARD
GELB, ET AL., Appellants v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL.,
Respondents, 2018-00165, Index No. 709241/16 (N.Y. App. Div.), the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department, affirmed with costs the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint.

The order was issued by the New York Supreme Court, Queens County
(Marguerite A. Grays, J.), on Nov. 17, 2017, granting the
Defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

In 2008, Plaintiffs Bernard Gelb and Unclaimed Property Recovery
Service, Inc., along with other individuals, commenced the proposed
class action against the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint in 2016 alleging various causes of action against
the defendants, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they represented two classes.  The
first class was comprised of bond issuers such as states, cities,
municipalities, and corporations.  These bond issuers allegedly
entered into bond-paying agreements with the Defendants, and were
charged fees for services related to those agreements, which the
defendants, acting as a bond transfer and paying agents, allegedly
did not perform.

The second class was comprised of all asset finders, asset
locators, unclaimed property recovery services, heir-finders, and
asset tracers, including the Plaintiffs ("property finders"), who,
based upon the alleged fraudulent conduct of the Defendants,
suffered significant monetary loss by being deprived of the ability
to assist the public in finding and redeeming unclaimed bonds.

After issue was joined, the Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR
3211(a) to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Supreme Court
granted this motion upon the Plaintiffs' default.  Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate their
default and pursuant to CPLR 2221 to renew and reargue with respect
to the motion to dismiss.

In an order entered Nov. 17, 2017, the Supreme Court, among other
things, granted those branches of the Plaintiffs' motion which were
to vacate their default and for leave to renew and reargue with
respect to the Defendants' motion.  However, upon renewal and
reargument, the court, in effect, adhered to its prior
determination granting the Defendants' motion, finding, inter alia,
that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the action.

The Plaintiffs appeal.

Standing is a threshold determination that a person should be
allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a
particular dispute.  To confer standing, a claimed injury may not
depend upon speculation about what might occur in the future, but
must consist of cognizable harm, meaning that a plaintiff has been
or will be injured.

In the case, the Plaintiffs' claims of injury-in-fact as property
finders rely upon events that might not have occurred and are too
speculative to demonstrate "concrete injury fulfilling the
requirement of standing.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not have
standing to raise the causes of action on behalf of the bond
issuers.

The Appellate Division finds that the procedural device of a class
action may not be used to bootstrap a plaintiff into standing which
is otherwise lacking.  The Plaintiffs lack standing to interpose
the causes of action alleged on behalf of the bond issuers as they
are not a member of that class and were not injured as a result of
the Defendants' actions in handling and accounting for the bonds.
The Plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court
properly adhered to its prior determination granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xbv3nez from Leagle.com.

The Engel Law Group, PLLC, in New York City (Adam E. Engel --
adam.engel@katten.com -- of counsel), for Appellants.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, in New York City (Paul C. Curnin
and Linton Mann III of counsel), for Respondents.


JOEY TOMATO'S: Facing $17M Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Outbreak in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ctvnews.ca reports that a $17 million class-action lawsuit has been
filed against the Joey restaurant location in Eau Claire, following
a COVID-19 outbreak at the restaurant.

The lawsuit against Joey Tomato's (Canada) Inc. states the business
failed to take reasonable steps to protect staff, customers and
their immediate families from infection by COVID-19.

"This is about making sure that businesses don't put their bottom
lines ahead of their customers and their workers health," said
Mathew Farrell, partner, Guardian Law Group, which filed the
claim.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class-action, it would represent
anyone who contracted the virus within two weeks of dining at Joey,
anyone who shared a household with those people who got sick.

"What it alleges is that this restaurant didn't do the things that
are reasonable and expected of people to take care of each other.
As a result, there was an increased risk of transmissibility of
COVID-19 and in fact, a whole bunch of people got sick as a
result," said Farrell.

According to the statement of claim, representative plaintiff
Matthew Cornfield and his pregnant spouse dined at the restaurant
on March 13, 2021. A week later, he tested positive for COVID-19.
His spouse, who was 20 weeks pregnant at the time also tested
positive and had to be hospitalized.

The claim alleges six other people who were close contacts,
including Cornfield's parents and his spouse's parents, became
infected with the virus as a result. Cornfield's mother-in-law was
hospitalized with severe complications.

Alberta Health said it has been notified of 58 cases linked to the
outbreak at Joey Eau Claire. All 58 people have recovered.

The lawsuit alleges the restaurant did not follow proper safety
protocols set out by Alberta Health Services.

The lawsuit states the defendant breaches its duty of care for
actions including; failing to provide or monitor adequate
separation between customers and staff; failing to take reasonable
steps to ensure patrons seated together were from the same
household or failing to implement adequate procedures for cleaning
in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Farrell says the lawsuit sends a message to all businesses.

"Regulations are one thing but we all have a duty to take care of
each other. We all have a duty to do the right thing and do what we
can to limit the spread of the virus and do what is reasonable and
when you don't do that and people get hurt then that's on you."

Farrell said the damages sought at this point are an estimate.

Alberta Health said it has been notified of 58 cases linked to the
outbreak at Joey Eau Claire. All 58 people have recovered.

Joey emailed a statement to CTV News on saying . . .

"We have just learned about this class action lawsuit through the
media. We take the safety of our employees and patrons very
seriously. We have consistently followed the public health
guidelines and recommendations of Alberta Health Services (AHS) and
have cooperated fully with AHS in respect of this matter."

None of the allegations have been tested in court. [GN]

KANGMEI PHARMACEUTICAL: China Launches First Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
India Times reports that China launched the country's first
class-action lawsuit against a listed company, targeting Kangmei
Pharmaceutical Co, as regulators vowed "zero tolerance" against
accounting fraud and other capital markets "tumors".

The China Securities Investor Service Centre (CSISC), a
government-affiliated body, is suing Kangmei on behalf of more than
50 individual investors in a landmark case in China's capital
markets, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) said.

Kangmei was engaged in intentional and systematic financial
cheating worth 30 billion yuan ($4.60 billion) between 2016 and
2018, CSRC said, adding "toxic tumors" in capital markets must be
eradicated swiftly, and relentlessly.

Kangmei could not be immediately reached for comment outside
business hours.

China introduced the class-action mechanism to capital markets last
year as part of efforts to crack down on corporate malfeasance and
bolster investor confidence.

Although corporate fraud is not uncommon in China, retail investors
have historically had little chance to make their voices heard.
Small investors often likened legal action to ants fighting
elephants.

Still, CSRC said that the new class action mechanism would greatly
reduce investors' cost of suing listed companies and help reduce
malpractices in China's capital market.

Unlike the US system, class actions must be launched by government
bodies such as CSISC, and only typical and major cases are selected
initially. [GN]

KOUFUKU LLC: Kataoka Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMI KATAOKA, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOUFUKU LLC d/b/a Raku, SAN ROKU
LLC d/b/a Raku, HUEY CHENG, and JEFFREY LAM, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03247 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, unlawful
retention of gratuities, failure to provide notice and
acknowledgement of pay rate and payday, and failure to provide wage
statement in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Ms. Kataoka worked as a waitress from November 2016 to March 2020,
and from June 2020 through the present.

Koufuku LLC, d/b/a Raku, and San Roku LLC d/b/a Raku, are both
Japanese restaurants located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Alfons D'Auria, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  alfons@lipskylowe.com

LABORATORY CORP: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Case No.
1:21-cv-02089 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- provides vital information
to help doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, researchers,
and patients make clear and confident decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LIFEMD INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Owens v. LifeMD, Inc., et
al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03384) on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD, Inc. ("LifeMD" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LFMD) securities between January 19, 2021 and
April 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your LifeMD 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/lifemd-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 or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On April 14, 2021, Culper Research issued a report alleging that
"LifeMD appears to use unlicensed doctors to dispense OTC
medications, has implemented an autoshipping/autobilling scheme,
failed to honor guarantees, and put in place abusive telemarketing
practices." The report also alleged that several of the Company's
executives were involved in "wide ranging fraud" at Redwood
Scientific, which was charged by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
for "unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false
claims." Specifically, according to Culper Research, "many
customers are effectively duped into purchasing subscriptions
rather than one-time purchases" and LifeMD "makes cancellations
difficult if not impossible."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.84, or 24%, to
close at $9.00 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 many of LifeMD's executives were associated
with Redwood Scientific when it was charged for unlawful
autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and that
they employed similar practices at the Company; (2) that LifeMD
engaged in autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record
recurring revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such
subscriptions; (3) that certain of the purportedly licensed
physicians on the Company's platform were not in fact licensed and
faced disciplinary action; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing
practices, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and/or reputational harm; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

LOANCARE LLC: Jurisdictional Question Briefing in Pritchard Ordered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMMY PRITCHARD, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE, LLC, and
AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-2356-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), Judge S. Thomas Anderson of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern
Division, issued an order requiring briefing on jurisdictional
question.

Plaintiff Pritchard filed the purported class action against
American Financial, the holder of her mortgage, and Loancare, the
subservicer of the mortgage.  In her amended complaint, she asserts
state law claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied duty
of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conspiracy,
negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff alleges that complete
diversity exists between the Defendants and at least one member of
the proposed class and the matter in controversy exceeds $5
million, as required by Section 1332(d).  Both the Defendants have
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Tennessee, purchased a home and
entered into a mortgage contract with AFR.  Her mortgage is a loan
which is a government-backed home loan insured by the Federal
Housing Administration.  A month after entering into the mortgage
with AFR, LoanCare began servicing the loan as a subservicer.  The
Plaintiff began making monthly mortgage payments through LoanCare.

On approximately five instances, instead of mailing her mortgage
payment to the agreed upon address, for which she would incur no
fee, the Plaintiff asked that LoanCare process her mortgage payment
through a pay-by-phone processing service or online processing
service offered by LoanCare, in order to credit the payment on that
same day, in exchange for payment of LoanCare's $10 fee.  She chose
those services to insure timely payment.

The scheduling order in the matter set March 29, 2021, as the
deadline for filing a motion for class certification.  On that
date, the Plaintiff filed a notice that she did not intend to move
for class certification and, instead, would pursue only her
individual claims.  Accordingly, the deadline for class
certification has now passed.

Judge Anderson explains that while the Defendants have not raised
the issue of the Court's jurisdiction in light of the Plaintiff's
notice not to seek class certification, federal courts have a duty
to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in every case and may
raise the issue sua sponte.   Although in a removed case the Sixth
Circuit held that "a district court may retain jurisdiction
following the denial of class certification," when CAFA is the only
source of federal jurisdiction in a case that originated in federal
court and the plaintiff subsequently withdraws the class
allegations, there is authority allowing the Court to dismiss the
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Because of the importance of the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Defendants are ordered to file a brief on the
issue of whether the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction
despite the Plaintiff's decision not to file for class
certification within 14 days of the entry of the Order.  The
Plaintiff will then have 14 days in which to file a response to the
Defendants' brief(s).

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hrtuk3ks from Leagle.com.


MARYLAND: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Coronavirus Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Olivo at Washington Post reports that Maryland corrections
officials plan to begin vaccinating detainees inside the Chesapeake
Detention Facility as part of a court settlement reached in a
federal lawsuit that alleged a host of unsanitary conditions there
allowed the coronavirus to spread.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in
Baltimore in February, claimed that guards in the pretrial facility
of 400 detainees rarely wore masks and that healthy detainees were
forced into contaminated cells that had not been sanitized.

Since March 2020, 274 inmates and staff inside the Baltimore
facility have tested positive for the virus. Most of those
individuals have since recovered, according to the state's
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

In a court settlement reached Thursday, the department agreed to
begin vaccinating detainees, as well as educating them about the
benefits of getting a shot, by May 1.

The department will also implement measures to keep detainees who
have tested positive for the virus away from those who haven't been
infected, quarantine detainees who've been exposed to someone
infected and conduct weekly coronavirus tests in an effort to limit
the virus's spread.

"Staff and residents come out of this facility every day," said
John Fowler, an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, which filed the lawsuit in partnership with the
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner law firm in Washington. "Anything that
happens inside the facility affects Baltimore, so this settlement
keeps the facility safer and it also keeps Baltimore safer."

In the settlement agreement, the Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services did not admit to any wrongdoing.

"Since Day 1 of the pandemic, the department has been committed to
the health and safety of its detainees, inmates and employees,"
said Mark Vernarelli, a department spokesman, noting that
Maryland's corrections system ranks 37th in the nation in its rate
of coronavirus cases.

"The agreement related to the Chesapeake Detention Facility lawsuit
reinforces the department's long-standing commitment to protecting
its employees and the incarcerated men and women," Vernarelli
said.

The complaint described multiple instances where the virus was
allowed to spread between detainees and the guards monitoring
them.

In one case, a woman who was new to the facility was kept in a cell
flanked on both sides by cells that contained male detainees who
had recently tested positive for the virus.

In another, a male detainee was forced to stay in the same cell
with a cellmate who was clearly showing symptoms of infection,
including coughing and a fever.

The settlement agreement is set to expire 180 days after Maryland's
state of emergency declaration for the pandemic is lifted. [GN]

MAYO CLINIC: Baum Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONITA BAUM, Individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. MAYO
CLINIC AMBULANCE (f/k/a GOLD CROSS AMBULANCE SERVICE) and GOLD
CROSS AMBULANCE, INC., Case No. : 3:20-cv-00409-wmc (W.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The proposed class covers persons who have been illegally charged
various basic, retrieval and/or certification fees in violation of
Wisconsin law. Moya v. Aurora Healthcare, Inc., 2017 WI 45, 22, 375
Wis. 2d 38, 894 N.W.2d 405 (2017).

The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets all of the
requirements of Rule 23 necessary to certify classes that will
allow Wisconsin patients to recover the fees that Defendant has
directly or indirectly illegally charged and collected and be
granted such other relief they may be entitled to under Wisconsin
law. In the absence of the class, the class members will not
recover these illegal fees.

Mayo Clinic provides advanced care and transport from scenes of
injury or hospital to hospital via ground or air ambulance.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2P3FIcr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
          WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C.
          933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311
          Milwaukee, WI 53226
          Telephone: (414) 774-7330
          Facsimile: (414) 774-7670
          E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES
          15692 US Hwy 63
          PO Box 761
          Hayward WI 54843-0761
          Telephone: (715) 634-4273
          Facsimile: (715) 634-5051
          E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM, LLC
          1400 S Charles St.
          Baltimore MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

MCKESSON CORP: Court OKs Evanston Police's Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVANSTON POLICE PENSION
FUND, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06525-CRB
(N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order
granting motion for class certification of:

   "all persons and entities who 2 O 14 || acquired McKesson
common
    stock between October 24, 2013 and November 3, 2016."

McKesson does not oppose class certification, but argues that the
class should exclude persons who acquired McKesson stock after
January 11, 2016. The Court grants the motion for class
certification in full. The Court is unable to conclude on the
existing record that the seemingly significant November 3, 2016
disclosures did not cause a decline in McKesson's stock price. And
McKesson's price impact arguments are focused on the causes of
subsequent economic losses rather than the integrity of the market
price at the time of the relevant transactions.

The class is thus certified on the understanding that the Court may
later amend the class. Because the parties have developed the
issues disputed in the instant motion, McKesson may file a motion
for partial summary judgment on those issues within 60 days from
the date of this order, Judge Breyer says.

McKesson is an American company distributing pharmaceuticals and
providing health information technology, medical supplies, and care
management tools.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ekkkYX at no extra charge.[CC]s

MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foams Product Suit Transferred to D.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order
transferring Case No. 2:21-00056, (E.D. Pa.) to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina and assigned to Richard M.
Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Aqua Pennsylvania moved to vacate the panel's order that
conditionally transferred Aqua Pennsylvania to the District of
South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873, arguing that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Aqua Pennsylvania is lacking and
that its pending motion for remand to state court should be decided
before transfer and that its claims solely concern contamination of
drinking water caused by defendants' improper handling and disposal
of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, which includes PFOA
and PFOS) at two manufacturing facilities located in West Chester,
Pennsylvania. However, the panel determined that the Aqua
Pennsylvania constitutes an aqueous film-forming foam litigation.

In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was
determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products
used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations
caused the release of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and
contaminated drinking water. The panel finds that the said actions
share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs,
the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human
health and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to
migrate in groundwater supplies.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/32pbNi3


MDL 2988: 4 Cookware Product Disputes Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS, LLC, COOKWARE MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2988, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers four actions, one each from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia and U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania and with the consent of that court, assigned it to
Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The actions involve common factual issues concerning All-Clad's
multi-ply stainless-steel cookware (pots, pans, skillets, etc.)
that was marketed as dishwasher safe but allegedly degrade after
dishwasher use, creating sharp edges as a result of the aluminum
layers deteriorating and exposing sharp stainless steel layers.
Plaintiffs specifically allege defects in All-Clad Cookware from
the D3, D5, and LTD Stainless Steel Collections. Defendants
All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC and Groupe SEB USA, Inc. moved to
centralize this litigation in the U.S. District Court for Western
District of Pennsylvania or, alternatively, the Northern District
of California while the Plaintiffs in all four actions in the
aforementioned districts oppose centralization and, alternatively,
suggest selection of a Northern District of California transferee
district.

The panel held that the four actions all involve defendants'
flagship product, a multi-ply stainless steel cookware that was
marketed and sold across the country, that the pendency of four
highly similar statewide class actions in districts across the
country raises the cost of litigating common questions and poses
the risk of inconsistent rulings in discovery disputes on which the
litigation may turn. Defendants counter that plaintiffs are trying
to force them to fight costly multi-front suits in courts across
the nation and that, even with the prospect of coordinated
discovery, defendants still face the possibility of inconsistent
(if not divergent) rulings in various jurisdictions. In addition,
the panel pointed out that the history of the litigation does not
strongly suggest that adopting a similar coordination plan is the
optimal route to resolve this litigation, so in these
circumstances, centralization under Section 1407 is available to
the parties to streamline this litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3df9ILU

MINDVALLEY INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mindvalley, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Mindvalley, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02066 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021).

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

Mindvalley -- https://www.mindvalley.com/ -- is the world's leading
education platform offering the best online courses in personal
growth and self-development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


MONROE TOWNSHIP: Faces Joanna Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe Township Board
of Education. The case is captioned as JOANNA A. v. MONROE TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06283-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.,
March 23, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Handicapped Child Act involving
civil rights on education.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman.

The Defendants include NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; KEVIN
DEHMER, Interim Commissioner of Education; NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ELLEN S. BASS, Chief Administrative Law Judge;
JEFFREY R WILSON. Administrative Law Judge; JOHN S. KENNEDY,
Administrative Law Judge; CATHERINE A. TUOHY, Administrative Law
Judge and DOES 1-250 SIMILARLY SITUATED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGES.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Craig Thurston, Esq.
          THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC
          100 Springdale Road A3, PMB 287
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 335-5291
          E-mail: rthurston@schoolkidslawyer.com

Defendant Monroe Township Board of Education is represented by:

          William S. Donio, Esq.
          Yolanda Nicole Melville, Esq.
          COOPER LEVENSON, P.A.
          1125 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor
          Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4891
          Telephone: (609) 344-3161
          E-mail: wdonio@cooperlevenson.com
                  ymelville@cooperlevenson.com


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
May 17, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Neptune Wellness
Solutions Inc. ("Neptune" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NEPT)
securities between July 24, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

In June 2019, Neptune acquired SugarLeaf Labs, LLC and Forest
Remedies LLC (collectively, "SugarLeaf"), a registered North
Carolina-based commercial hemp company providing extraction
services and formulated products.

On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced net loss of CA$73.8 million
for third quarter 2021 due in part to a CA$35.6 million impairment
of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million impairment of "property, plant and
equipment and right-of-use assets related to the acquisition of
SugarLeaf in July 2019," as well as accelerated amortization of
CA$13.95 million "also related to the SugarLeaf acquisition."

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or
30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on February 17, 2021, before the market opened, Neptune
issued a press release announcing the termination of an
at-the-market offering conducted by the Company, which would have
raised $18.6 million in gross proceeds. Immediately after, Neptune
issued a second press release announcing that the Company was
conducting a $55 million registered direct offering.

On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
10.82%, to close at $1.73 per share on February 17, 2021, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the cost of
Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in the
SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had
acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital
reserves; (2) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise
more capital; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Neptune securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

NORTLITE LLC: Hill Suit Removed to North District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Debra Hill, Brittany McNair, David Olivencia,
Audrey Anna Gallardo, Jennifer Malinowski, Chelsea Sturtevant, Ed
Sokol, Margaret Sevinsky, Margaret Franklin, and others similarly
situated v. Norlite, LLC, Tradebe Environmental Services, LLC,
Tradebe Treatment and Recycling Northeast, LLC, Case No. 902279-21
was removed from the Albany County Supreme Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 16,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00439-BKS-DJS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

Norlite -- https://www.norliteagg.com/ -- is a manufactured
lightweight, porous ceramic material produced by expanding and
vitrifying select shale in a rotary kiln.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip A. Oswald, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          25 Walton Street
          Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
          Phone: (518) 886-1902
          Fax: (518) 450-1724
          Email: oswald@ruppbaase.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Patrick Ray, Esq.
          Wystan M Ackerman, Esq.
          ROBINSON, COLE LAW FIRM-HARTFORD OFFICE
          280 Trumbull Street
          One Commercial Plaza
          Hartford, CT 06103-3597
          Phone: ((860) 275-8257
          Fax: (860) 275-8299
          Email: jray@rc.com
                 wackerman@rc.com


OBVIOUS WINES: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Obvious Wines, LLC.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Obvious Wines, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02067 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021).

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

Obvious Wines -- https://obviouswines.com/ -- is a collection of
family estate wines crafted through sustainably farmed practices
across vineyards in California, Chile, and France.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Adkins Suit Removed to District of Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cindy Adkins, Timothy South, Paiton Campbell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OnPoint Community Credit Union, Case No. 21CV06289 was removed from
the Multnomah County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00567-HZ to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

OnPoint Community Credit Union -- https://www.onpointcu.com/ --
operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial
solutions such as loans, investment, savings, credit and debit
cards, online banking, and other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
          707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Phone: (503) 228-6474
          Fax: (503) 228-2556
          Email: david@davidsugerman.com
                 nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
          Timothy M. Cunningham, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP (Seattle)
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Phone: (206) 757-8016
          Fax: (206) 757-7016
          Email: fredburnside@dwt.com
                 timcunningham@dwt.com


PARTNER COMMS: Litigation Over Voicemail Service Charges 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 class action suit related to voicemail
service charges.

On July 4, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and two additional
cellular operators.

The claim alleges that the Company charges its customers for
voicemail service without receiving their prior express consent for
this service and for its charge and without a contractual right.

The total amount claimed against the respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants.

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: Putative Class Suit Over Anti-Virus Service 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 the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its
unlawful charges it made to its customers for anti-virus services
without their consent.

On April 1, 2020, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers
for anti-virus services without their consent.

The total amount claimed from the Company was not stated by the
applicant but was estimated by the applicant to be at least tens of
millions of NIS.

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: Settlement Agreement Filed in SMS Charges 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 a
settlement agreement has been filed in the court handling the class
action suit related to unlawful sent through text messages
(SMS)charges.

On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers
for services of various content providers, which are SMS.

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 405 million. The claim was
certified as a class action in December 2016.

In January 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court, regarding the definition of the group of customers.

In November 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the
claim was reverted back to the District Court.

In February 2020, a settlement agreement was filed with the Court.

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: Smartbox Purchaser Class Suit 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 the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by its customers
regarding the company's Smartbox device.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner required their customers to purchase
a Smartbox device which is terminal equipment as a condition for
using its fixed-line telephony services, an action which would not
be in accordance with the provisions of its licenses.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116 million.

In February 2019, the Court approved the request to certify the
claim as a class action with certain changes.

In March 2019, the Company filed an appeal of this decision.

In February 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal request
that was filed and the claim was reverted back to the District
Court and the proceedings have resumed.

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: Suit Over Free Content Filtering Services 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 putative class action suit related to free
content filtering services.

On April 11, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and additional
telecommunication service companies.

The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the other
respondents, breached their obligations under the law and their
license and does not inform its customers as required regarding a
free content filtering service and prioritizes a paid service over
a free service and the filtering service does not meet the legal
requirements and those of the license and is ineffective.  

The total amount claimed against the respondents if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action, was not stated by the applicants.

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.


PATTERN BEAUTY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pattern Beauty, LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Pattern
Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02097-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 16,
2021).

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

PATTERN -- https://patternbeauty.com/ -- focuses on hair health &
encourages each hair texture to take up as much space as it
desires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PNC BANK: Illegally Collects Unearned GAP Waiver Fees, Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02000 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's practice of knowingly collecting unearned fees for
Guaranteed Automobile Protection Waivers ("GAP Waiver") after the
early payoff of a customer's retail installment sales contract or
finance agreement.

Each of the retail installment sales contracts at issue in the
lawsuit included a GAP Waiver. A GAP Waiver is an addendum to the
retail installment sales contract which amends the terms of the
contract and becomes a part of the agreement.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knows these fees have not
been earned, and will never be earned, but nevertheless includes
them in the payoff amount when the customer pays off their contract
early. The Defendant then refuses to refund these unearned GAP fees
to its customers, even though PNC is contractually and legally
obligated to do so as the assignee/creditor/lienholder of the
finance agreement and GAP Waiver. As a result of this alleged
unlawful practice, PNC knowingly collects and keeps millions in
unearned GAP fees from its customers each year.

Ms. Jones is an individual (a) who entered into a finance agreement
with a GAP Waiver addendum that was assigned to PNC; (b) who paid
off her finance agreements to PNC before the end of the contract
term set forth in the finance agreement; and (c) who did not
receive a refund of the unearned GAP fees collected by PNC and/or
the accrued interest on those unpaid fees.

PNC, N.A., d/b/a PNC Auto Finance, is a national association bank
chartered in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, 31stFloor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: rclifford@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
          Brian J. Hanlin, Esq.
          Margeaux R. Azar, Esq.
          Alexander F. Beale, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.  
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
                  murphym@fdazar.com
                  hanlinb@fdazar.com
                  azarm@fdazar.com
                  bealea@fdazar.com

               - and -
           
          Jason M. Frank, Esq.
          Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
          Scott H. Sims, Esq.
          FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
          19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 201-2400
          E-mail: jfrank@lawfss.com
                  astolper@lawfss.com
                  ssims@lawfss.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lichtinger Alleges Deceptive Toothpaste Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liza Lichtinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02680 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2021) arises from the
engagement of the Defendant in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive acts
and practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

P&G manufactures, labels, markets, distributes, and sells Crest
brand Gum & Enamel Repair toothpaste. On the front of the product,
P&G represents that the product provides gum repair. Allegedly, the
Defendant's gum repair representation is false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public since toothpastes,
including the product, cannot repair gums though they may help
control, reduce, or prevent gingivitis.

Based on violations of California unfair competition laws, the
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief for consumers
who purchased the products, and will amend her complaint to seek
damages if Defendant does not cure its product misrepresentations
and give notice to all affected consumers in response to
Plaintiff's CLRA letter.

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Milhouse, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01601,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21446-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Property for Property
Damage.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allow users to invest in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (415) 234-5262
          Email: erapp@edelson.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Petrosyan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Emil Petrosyan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00238,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21444-CMA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allow users to invest in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com


ROMEO POWER: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Romeo Power Inc. ("Romeo" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RMO), formerly known as RMG Acquisition Corp.
("RMG") (NYSE: RMG); Lionel E. Selwood, Jr., the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer, and a member of the
Company's board of directors; Lauren Webb, the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and a member of the Company's board of directors;
as well as certain current directors of Romeo, and former directors
of RMG.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and is brought by
plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Romeo during the period October 5,
2020 through March 30, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period").

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later 60 days from today to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

The Complaint alleges that on December 29, 2020, Romeo announced
that it completed its business combination with RMG. The business
combination was approved by RMG stockholders in a special meeting
held on December 28, 2020 and consummated on December 29, 2020.

The Complaint further alleges that Defendants represented that for
2020 Romeo estimated revenue of $11 million, and for 2021 Romeo
estimated revenue of $140 million. The Complaint further alleges
that Defendants represented that Romeo had the capacity and supply
to meet end-user demand for Romeo's products, that Romeo was not
beholden "to any level of the value chain", that its supply was
hedged, and that they did not see any material challenges that
would hamper growth.

The Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, unknown
to investors, Romeo was suffering from an acute shortage of high
quality battery cells, which are key raw materials for Romeo's
battery packs and modules, due to supply constraints. Contrary to
Defendants' representations, (i) Romeo had only two battery cell
suppliers, not four, (ii) the future potential risks that
Defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had
already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo's
business, operations and prospects, (iii) Romeo did not have the
battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up
production in 2021, (iv) Romeo's supply constraint was a material
hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth, and (v) Romeo's supply chain
for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk
and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market
for their 2021 inventory. Given the supply constraint that Romeo
was experiencing during the Class Period, Defendants had no
reasonable basis to represent that the Company had the ability to
meet customer demand and that it would support growth in revenue in
2021.

When the true details entered the market on March 31, 2021, Romeo
shares declined from a closing price on March 30, 2021 of $10.37
per share to close at $8.33 per share, a decline of $2.04 per
share, or almost 20%, on heavier than usual volume of over 20
million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland,
California, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the Complaint,
please e-mail attorneys Jason Uris (juris@kaplanfox.com), or Larry
King (lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular mail,
or fax:

         Jason A. Uris
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (646) 315-9007
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail address: juris@kaplanfox.com

         Laurence D. King
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Fax: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]


SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Duban Seeks Refund for Canceled Flight
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY M. DUBAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM INC. and
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES OF NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No. 153608/2021
(N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., April 14, 2021) arises from the failure
of Defendants to refund to Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated amounts paid to Defendants for airline tickets after
flights were cancelled due to the global COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have no justification
for failing to return the funds to Plaintiff and the Class Members
and should not be allowed to profit from the global pandemic, and
their own cancellation of flights, at the expense of Plaintiff and
the Class Members.

The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated purchased tickets
from Defendants for airline travel on or after March 1, 2020.
However, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants canceled
Plaintiff's and all other Class Members' flights.

The Defendants own, operate and control an airline that provides
flights to consumers from the United States and other locations
around the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          Daniel F. Schreck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER
           KOPPELL AND ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838

SDI INTERNATIONAL: Conditional Certification of Collectives Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE SLOBEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SDI
INTERNATIONAL CORP., Case No. 7:20-cv-04717-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying her proposed collectives pursuant
to
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. approving her proposed Notice and its distribution process to

      the putative collective members;

   3. directing the Defendants to produce in a computer readable
      file, the following information for all putative opt-in
      plaintiffs: names, last known mailing addresses, alternate
      addresses, all known email addresses (work and personal), and

      dates of employment.

SDI provides outsourcing and workforce solutions. The Company
offers procurement process outsourcing, strategic development, and
management service programs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3akVE1i
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
                  skane@vkvlawyers.com
                  awhite@vkvlawyers.com

SECOND ROUND: Ford FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stacy Ford, Stephen Ford, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Second Round Sub LLC,
Quantum3 Group, LLC, Case No. GD-21-002520 was removed from the
Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on April 16, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00513 to the
proceeding.

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

Second Round -- https://www.second-round.com/ -- is a receivables
management firm that serves businesses of all types
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (412) 223-5740
          Fax: (412) 626-7101
          Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
          MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
          2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 889-8535
          Fax: (800) 997-8192
          Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brit J. Suttell, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          10 Beatty Road, Suite 200
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: (484) 999-4232
          Email: britjsuttell@bn-lawyers.com


SELECT SEEDS: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Seeds Co. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Select Seeds Co., Case No.
1:21-cv-02109-LDH-SJB (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2021).

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

Select Seeds -- https://www.selectseeds.com/ -- offers gardeners an
extensive and curated collection of high quality flower seeds and
plants, specializing in heirloom flowers, fragrant flowers,
open-pollinated annuals, bee-friendly flower seeds and plants,
flowering vines, and rare annuals and perennials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shiseido Americas
Corporation. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Shiseido Americas Corporation doing business as: Laura Mercier
Cosmetics, Case No. 1:21-cv-02093 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

Shiseido Americas -- https://corp.shiseido.com/en/americas/ -- is a
leading global beauty company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SOIL BASICS: Faces Lira Employment Suit in California State Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soil Basics
Corporation. The case is captioned as LIRA vs. SOIL BASICS
CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-21-100651 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., March
23, 2021).

The case arises from employment-related issues.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R.  Lampe. A case
management conference will be held on September 21, 2021.

Soil Basics was founded in 1992. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of agricultural machinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr. Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250

SQUARE ONE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Square One
Entertainment, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Square One
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03326 (S.D.N.Y., April 15,
2021).

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

Square One Entertainment Inc. (SOE) --
https://www.squareoneent.com/ -- a company based in California USA
and its Australian subsidiary, Square One TV Marketing Pty Ltd are
television and and multimedia companies specializing in infomercial
advertising and sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STREET INSIDER: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Street Insider Dot
Com Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Street Insider Dot Com
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03339 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

StreetInsider.com -- https://www.streetinsider.com/ -- is a
financial news analysis service that offers an inside look at Wall
Street, while focusing on market moving events and analyzing news
in real time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYMMETRY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Price Increases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo at Reuters reports that a Texas-based rose merchant
filed a proposed class action lawsuit against natural-gas marketer
Symmetry Energy Solutions in Marshall, Texas, federal court for
unlawfully passing on to its customers last-minute market-price
increases of the fuel during the February winter storm.

The putative class-action lawsuit that Certified Roses Inc, a
producer and wholesaler of garden roses, filed on Thursday alleges
that Houston-based Symmetry breached its contracts with its
customers nationwide when it jacked up the price of gas during the
coast-to-coast storm, including by charging Certified Roses some
2,000% more in February than for the same month the previous year.
[GN]


SYMMETRY ENERGY: Faces Lawsuit for Excessive Natural Gas Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An award-winning, historic Texas business has filed a proposed
nationwide class action lawsuit against Houston-based Symmetry
Energy Solutions, alleging unlawful price gouging of customers for
natural gas during February's statewide winter storm.

The lawsuit brought by Certified Roses Inc., a Tyler-based producer
and wholesaler of garden roses, states that Symmetry's invoice for
the month exceeded $248,000, with a line item of more than $233,000
for "incremental supply costs" incurred between February 10 and
February 22.

Certified Roses, established in 1949, has annually renewed an
index-based price contract with Symmetry since 2015. The lawsuit
alleges the contracts do not mention nor define the possibility of
such line item costs, and does not explain the extent of any
associated risks of a price calculation based on Inside FERC's Gas
Market Report.

According to the filing in federal court, Symmetry "did not have an
adequate amount of natural gas on hand, so, to meet its customers'
needs, it secured gas, but incurred penalties associated with
curtailment." The lawsuit claims that Symmetry bypassed its
contractual obligations, and took advantage of its customers during
a vulnerable time by attempting to pass on excessive costs and
charges to its customers.

The filing, which alleges breach of contract, misrepresentation,
negligence and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, requests the certification of a nationwide class. Symmetry is
believed to have more than 100,000 residential and commercial
customers across 30 states.

"Only Symmetry knows how its actions in Texas affected other
customers, and the extent to which these excessive costs were
further spread across the state of Texas and the rest of the
country," says Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston, who
represents Certified Roses. "This lawsuit seeks to reverse the
charges and obtain additional compensation for the individuals and
businesses who have received these excessive billings."

Potts Law Firm is also leading the class action lawsuit against
Griddy Energy for similar price gouging during winter storm Uri
involving electricity. Griddy Energy has recently filed
bankruptcy.

The lawsuit is Certified Roses Inc. v. Symmetry Energy Solutions
LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00133, filed in United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. [GN]

TASTY GREENS: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tasty Greens LLC. The
case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Tasty
Greens LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02084 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

Tasty Greens LLC -- https://8greens.com/ -- is located in Edison,
New Jersey and is part of the Restaurants Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TENNESSEE: Automated Messages Lead to TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that big TCPA trouble in Music City.

Some outfit in Tennessee styling itself "No Tax 4 Nash" is in a
(TCPA) world of hurt after using pre-recorded messages in a bid to
recall local candidates.

Apparently, Nashville's mayor and city council members supported a
recent tax hike and that made some folks grumpy. So they cranked up
a pre-recorded call campaign and hammered a bunch of folks off the
Davidson County Election Commission list.

Big mistake.

The calls went out July 16, 2020, and they were sued in a TCPA
class action the very next day. And now -- less than nine months
later -- No Tax 4 Nash is facing a certified class action that may
cost it millions.

In Elrod v. Tax, NO. 3:20-cv-00617, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68418
(M.D. Tenn.  April 08, 2021) the court certified the case against
Defendant noting that the "thousands" of calls at issue easily meet
Rule 23's numerosity threshold. The Court also notes that Defendant
did not dispute that it used precorded voices to contact voters
without their express consent. Since political calls are not exempt
from the TCPA, the Court had no problem determining that common
issues predominated here.

Plaintiff went so far as to lodge the Davidson County voter rolls
with the Court to aid in the identification of class members. Nice
trick.

In the end, the class definition needed a little bit of work since
the class consisted of individuals that received calls "between
July 16, 2020, and [July 17, 2020]" which makes no sense. But with
a little mop-up this case will be certified and No Tax 4 Nash may
soon be no more. (Oh, and the effort to recall the mayor failed.)

Takeaways here:

-- Again, prerecorded call cases are still dangerous after
Facebook;
-- Political calls are not exempt from TCPA coverage;
-- Music City is cool with taxes. [GN]

TRY TREATS: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Try Treats, LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Try Treats, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03354 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021).

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

Try Treats -- https://www.trytreats.com/ -- is a subscription box
company for international snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TULSA FEDERAL: Faces Kirk Suit Over Withdrawal Courtesy Pay Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA KIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TULSA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. CJ-2021-00820
(Okla. Dist., Tulsa Cty., March 23, 2021) is a civil action seeking
monetary damages, restitution, injunctive, and declaratory relief
from TFCU over the improper assessment and collection of $30
Withdrawal Courtesy Pay Fees (OD Fees) on transactions that did not
actually overdraw "the balance in an Account," the improper
assessment and collection of $30 OD Fees on debit card transactions
authorized on sufficient funds, and the improper assessment and
collection of multiple $30 fees on an item.

According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, these
practices breach TFCU's standardized adhesion contract, which
consists of the Membership and Account Agreement document. These
practices also breach TFCU's duty of good faith and fair dealing
and unjustly enrich TFCU to the detriment of its customers. The
Plaintiff, like thousands of others, has fallen victim to TFCU's
fee revenue maximization scheme, the suit adds.

Plaintiff Kirk is a citizen of Oklahoma and resident of Broken
Arrow, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff has had a checking account with
TFCU.

Tulsa Federal Credit Union is an Oklahoma credit union. It has over
$884 million in assets and maintains 10 branches across
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason B. Aamodt, Esq.
          Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
          INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Group, PLLC
          406 South Boulder Ave., Suite 830 :
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 347-6169
          Facsimile: (918) 948-6190

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN AND MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: toops@cohenandmalad.com
                  llafornara@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  martys@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909 .
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

TYSON FOODS: Northern District of Texas Tosses Martinez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERMAN LOPEZ MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. TYSON FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00528-P (N.D. Tex.), Judge Mark
T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, granted the Defendant's Partial Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2).

The case is an overtime compensation dispute arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Plaintiff Martinez was employed by
Defendant Tyson from approximately 1988 to January 2020 in Fort
Worth, Texas.  During his employment with Tyson, he worked at times
as a pepperoni slice supervisor, and at all times relevant to his
lawsuit as a production supervisor.

Mr. Martinez initiated the action by filing a Complaint in the
Court on May 22, 2020, and later a First Amended Complaint on June
23, 2020.  In his Amended Complaint, Martinez alleges Tyson
violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the
Portal-to-Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 251-262, for failure to pay
Martinez all due and owing overtime wages.  Martinez is a resident
of Texas, and Tyson was incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Arkansas.

Mr. Martinez filed an Expedited Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
asking the Court to conditionally certify this action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and approve notice to be sent to "all
production supervisors employed by Tyson during the last three
years who were paid with a salary and who did not receive overtime
pay."

During the motion's pendency, the Fifth Circuit, in Swales v. KLLM
Transp. Servs., L.L.C., No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan.
12, 2021), explicitly rejected the Lusardi approach to conditional
certifications of FLSA actions and formally adopted a new approach.
In light of Swales, the Court entered an order on Jan. 13, 2021,
denying without prejudice Martinez's motion for conditional
certification and ordering him to file an amended motion for
conditional certification addressing the Swales approach.  The
Court then granted parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time
requiring parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling order for
discovery and briefing on the certification issue no later than
seven days after the Court issues its ruling on Tyson's Partial
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2).

Tyson filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) on Sept. 21, 2020.  Martinez
filed his Response to the Motion on Oct. 13, 2020, and Tyson filed
its Reply on Oct. 27, 2020.

Tyson argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it
with respect to the FLSA claims of out-of-state putative collective
members and, as such, that the Court should dismiss any claims
asserted on behalf of out-of-state putative opt-in plaintiffs for
conduct that did not occur in Texas.  In contrast, Martinez argues
that the Court need only have personal jurisdiction over Martinez
on behalf of the collective members and that deciding this issue
prior to conditional certification is premature.

Judge Pittman must decide the 12(b)(2) Motion prior to conditional
certification.  As an initial matter, Martinez argues that the
Court may not rule on this 12(b)(2) Motion prior to conditional
certification.  In Martinez's Response, he argues that any
Bristol-Meyers defense is premature at the motion to dismiss stage
and cites Cruson v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company to
support this proposition.

Judge Pittman opines that Martinez's reliance on Cruson is
misplaced because, in that case, the Court analyzed whether a
personal jurisdiction defense had been brought too late instead of
whether it was premature, which is the issue in the instant case.
The issue in Cruson was whether the personal jurisdiction defense
was available under Rule 12(g)(2) when the defendant filed its Rule
12 Motions.  Further, the Judge finds that he must decide this
issue now because "courts should only authorize notice to
individuals who might be in the collective," and prolonging this
determination would "only sow confusion."

The Judge then finds that the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over potential out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs' claims
because Bristol-Myers Squibb applies.  He finds that there is no
affiliation between potential out-ofstate plaintiffs' claims and
Texas.  Further, Martinez makes no argument for relatedness and
solely relies on BMS's inapplicability.  Therefore, since he finds
BMS applicable to FLSA actions and Martinez makes no argument for
relatedness, the Jduge holds that the potential out-of-state opt-in
plaintiffs fail to satisfy the relatedness requirement necessary to
establish specific jurisdiction.

Mr. Martinez relies on Swamy v. Title Source, Inc., which held that
FLSA claims -- unlike state tort claims addressed in BMS -- are
"federal claims created by Congress specifically to address
employment practices nationwide."  The Judge holds that Swamy and
its progeny refuse to apply BMS to FLSA collective actions
primarily arguing: (1) the lack of federalism concerns in FLSA
actions, and (2) the purported frustration of Congressional
purpose.  He declines to follow the flawed, non-binding,
non-textual, and unpersuasive Swamy line of cases.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Pittman holds that the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over potential out-of-state putative
opt-in plaintiffs' claims because the Supreme Court precedence of
Bristol-Myers Squibb applies to this and all FLSA collective
actions. A s a result, he concludes that Tyson's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) should
be and is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3nfz23z8 from Leagle.com.


UNIFIN INC: Bailey Files FDCPA Suit in Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Shayla Bailey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-00314-SPC-MRM (M.D.
Fla., April 16, 2021).

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

UNIFIN, Inc. is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and
is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm
licensed and bonded nationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Court Consolidates Martinez With 2 Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, HALEY MARTINEZ and MATTHEW SHERIDAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant; CATHERINE HOLDEN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY
OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant; and EDGAR CHAVARRIA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN
DIEGO, Defendant, Case Nos. 3:20cv1946-LAB-WVG, 20cv2169-LAB-WVG,
3:20cv2215-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases and Set Briefing Schedule
for Motion to Dismiss in each of the actions.

The Plaintiffs filed the Motions and Defendant University of San
Diego subsequently filed Notices of Non-Opposition to the Motions.

Judge Burns finds that the following putative class actions are
related as they arise from the same set of facts and
substantially-similar legal theories and seek to represent
overlapping classes of University of San Diego students who paid
tuition and/or fees for any semester during which USD conducted
typically in-person activities online in connection with the
COVID-19 pandemic ("University of San Diego Tuition and Fees
COVID-19 Refund Litigation"): "Abbreviated Case Name Case Number
Date Filed Martinez v. University of 20cv1946-LAB-WVG October 1,
2021 San Diego Holden v. University of 20cv2169-LAB-WVG November 5,
2021 San Diego Chavarria v. University of 20cv2215-LAB-WVG November
13, 2021 San Diego."

The actions are consolidated for all purposes, subject to the terms
of the Order.

The caption of the consolidated action will be In re University of
San Diego Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation, and the
files of the consolidated action will be maintained in one file
bearing the low-numbered case number, Master File No.
20cv1946-LAB-WVG.  Any other University of San Diego Tuition and
Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation putative class action now pending
in, later filed in, or transferred to the Court arising out of or
related to the same set of facts will be consolidated for all
purposes if and when they are brought to the Court's attention.

Every pleading filed in the consolidated action or in any separate
putative class action included therein will bear the following
caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA In re University of San Diego Master File No. Tuition
and Fees COVID-19 15-cv-2106-LAB-WVG Refund Litigation This
document relates to:."

When a pleading is intended to apply to all actions governed by the
Order, the words "All Actions" shall appear immediately after the
words "This document relates to:" in the referenced caption.  When
a pleading is intended to be applicable to only some, but not all,
of the consolidated actions, the docket number for each individual
action to which the pleading is intended to be applicable and the
abbreviated case name of said action will appear immediately after
the words "This document relates to:" in the referenced caption.

A Master Docket and a Master File are established for the
consolidated proceedings, and for all other related cases filed in,
or transferred to, the Court.  Separate dockets will continue to be
maintained for each of the individual actions consolidated, and
entries will be made in the docket of each individual case in
accordance with the regular procedures of the clerk of the Court,
except as modified by the Order.

Upon the filing of a pleading applicable to "All Actions," the
clerk will file that pleading in the Master File and note the
filing on the Master Docket.  No further copies need be filed, and
no other docket entries need be made.  When a pleading applicable
to fewer than all of the consolidated actions is filed, the clerk
will file the pleading in the Master File only but docket it on the
Master Docket and the docket of each applicable action.

When a putative class action that properly belongs as part of the
consolidated action is filed in the Court or transferred to the
Court from another court, the clerk of the Court will: (a) place a
copy of the Order in the separate file for such action; (b) mail to
the attorney for the Plaintiff(s) in the newly-filed or transferred
case a copy of the Order and direct the Order be served upon or
mailed to any new defendant(s) or their counsel in the newly-filed
or transferred case; and (c) make an appropriate entry on the
Master Docket.

The Court requests the assistance of counsel in bringing the filing
or transfer of any case in the District which properly might be
consolidated as part of In re University of San Diego Tuition and
Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation to the attention of the clerk of
the Court.

Judge Burns finds that appointment of liaison counsel would
simplify case management and further efficient resolution of the
consolidated actions.  Accordingly, he directs the Plaintiffs
jointly to designate Interim Liaison Counsel with authority to
speak for all the Plaintiffs in the consolidated action, until the
appointment either expires or is modified by Court Order.

Service of all the papers filed with the Court shall be
accomplished by e-filing.  Papers not filed with the Court may be
served by: (i) e-mail; (ii) overnight mail service; or (iii) hand
delivery.  The Plaintiffs will serve all such unfiled papers by
serving Defendant's counsel.  Once Interim Liaison Counsel is
designated, Defendant will serve all such unfiled papers by serving
Interim Liaison Counsel.  Whenever feasible, the serving party
shall send courtesy copies simultaneously via e-mail in PDF format
to the Defendant's counsel and/or to Liaison Counsel, as
applicable.

Judge Burns granted the Motions.  He vacated the April 12, 2021
hearing on the Motions.  He stayed briefing on the Defendant's
pending motions to dismiss in each of the consolidated actions, and
vacated the hearings on those motions.

The Plaintiffs must file: (a) by April 21, 2021, a designation of
Liaison Counsel; and (b) by April 28, 2021, a consolidated
complaint.  The Defendant must file their response to the
consolidated complaint no later than 21 days after that pleading is
filed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jwt7ru6b from Leagle.com.


VB BEAUTY: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VB Beauty (US) LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. VB
Beauty (US) LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02098 (E.D.N.Y., April 16,
2021).

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

Victoria Beckham Beauty -- https://www.victoriabeckhambeauty.com/
-- offers a collection of sustainable and luxury makeup is a
masterclass in modern beauty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


VIRGINIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Unemployment Benefits Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
wjla.com reports that  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 a
class-action lawsuit in federal court seeking relief for Virginians
who lost their jobs during the pandemic and have no income to pay
for basic necessities while waiting months for the Virginia
Employment Commission (VEC) to approve their claims.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the 7News I-Team helping
thousands of people in Virginia since last May to obtain their
unemployment benefits.

The lawsuit says Virginia ranks 50th out of 50 when it comes to
being the worse state in the U.S. in processing issues on
unemployment claims.

It goes on to say in the last three months of 2020, the VEC failed
to decide "nonmonetary" eligibility issues (such as why someone's
job ended) within three weeks, as required by law, more than 95% of
the time, and it has only gotten worse in the first two months of
2021.

A news release by the Legal Aid Justice Center says the agency is
still plagued with payment delays. Since access to additional
federal unemployment benefits (such as from the CARES Act or the
2021 American Rescue Plan) requires VEC approval, these delays
prevent Virginia residents from receiving federal payments, too.
This despite Virginia receiving more than $38M in federal support
to help bolster its administrative response to this unemployment
crisis.

Senator Mark Warner in a recent letter to Governor Northam said,
"From Newport News to Henrico to Alexandria, constituents are
contacting my office from every corner of the Commonwealth with
desperate requests for relief. Some of them have waited 3 months,
others have waited 11 months, and many are struggling to feed their
children and keep a roof over their heads," and stated that, "for
constituents still experiencing delays the lack of pandemic
unemployment insurance is unconscionable."

"When you lose your income, it's the scariest thing on the planet.
I've filed my unemployment claims every week for over five months
now and have gotten nothing. I've emailed and called the VEC
repeatedly and -- when I could finally get a hold of a person -- I
just get told to wait," said Ashley Cox, a plaintiff in the
lawsuit. "My family has had to go on public assistance to survive.
It has been so stressful."

"Being cut off benefits, without any kind of chance to fight for
them, has been hard on my daughter and me. We lost our housing and
had to leave the area. I desperately need these benefits and feel
beyond frustrated that it has seven months since I last received
them. I am so overwhelmed," said Amber Dimmerling, a plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

The litigation challenges two common VEC failures regarding
processing and adjudication of applications ("Initial Claims") and
the abrupt cut-off of benefits the VEC initially approved
("Continued Claims") -- both of which violate federal and state
unemployment laws, as well as the due process guarantees of the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

No response and no money - Many people applied for unemployment
months and months ago, and still have heard nothing from the VEC.
Speed in delivering benefits is the fundamental feature of the
unemployment benefit system, where benefits are to be paid,
according to the U.S. Supreme Court, "as close to the nearest
payday following termination" as possible. Similarly, Virginia's
unemployment benefits law requires claims to be decided "promptly,"
as opposed to months and months after those claims are filed.

Benefits stop with no warning and little recourse - Some people
were getting unemployment, and then their benefits were cut off by
the VEC without any notice or a hearing before a VEC deputy,
because of an "issue" on their claim. The VEC was apparently
unaware that it was illegal to cut off benefits in that way until
last fall, when a group of legal aid advocates brought it to the
agency's attention. While many people who had faced continued
claims cut-offs saw their benefits resume, the VEC is still
withholding benefits due to many people.

The lawsuit does not claim that everyone who files a claim with the
VEC is entitled to benefits. But every Virginian who files a claim
for benefits is entitled -- by law -- to a prompt response from the
VEC. And everyone who has begun to receive benefits is entitled-by
law-to continue receiving benefits until a VEC deputy decides
otherwise.

"Bureaucratic delays in the processing of unemployment claims by
the VEC compound the suffering of newly jobless Virginians," said
Steven Fischbach, Litigation Director for VPLC. "Without income,
these Virginians face the loss of their homes through foreclosure
or eviction, shut off essential services such as gas, electricity,
and water, and they cannot pay other bills. With this lawsuit, VPLC
hopes to bring relief to unemployed Virginians who need the
emergency income that unemployment benefits provide."

"Legal Aid Works staff have been fielding calls from low-income
applicants worried about the lack of response by the VEC, leaving
them in legal limbo without payments or access to the appeals
process, right when they need this help the most. We hope the
lawsuit filed will give these hard-working Virginians quick,
tangible relief," said Ann H. Kloeckner, Esq., Executive Director
of Legal Aid Works.

The Legal Aid Justice Center has also launched an online call to
action, urging those struggling to make ends meet in the face of
inaction by the VEC and the state administration to contact
Governor Northam and demand more resources, leadership, and focus
be put on solving this critical issue. www.justice4all.org/ui

7News has been told by officials with the Virginia Employment
Commission it has no comment on the filing of the lawsuit. [GN]

VROOM INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VRM) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 21-cv-03296, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Vroom securities between June 9, 2020 and March
3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vroom securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 21, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Vroom was founded in 2013 and is based in New York, New York. The
Company is an ecommerce platform that buys and sells used vehicles.
Through the Company's online platform, consumers can research and
select from thousands of fully reconditioned vehicles. After a
vehicle is purchased, the Company provides contact-free delivery to
the buyer's driveway.

Vroom became a public company through an initial public offering on
June 9, 2020 (the "IPO"). Prior to the IPO, Vroom significantly
reduced its inventory to account for an expected drop in demand as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a lack of
inventory had materially constrained Vroom's ability to increase
revenues in the second quarter of 2020 and meet a surge in customer
demand for online used vehicles; (ii) Vroom had slashed the average
selling price per vehicle by over 15% in response to a sustained
and fundamental market shift to lower-priced vehicles, and not
simply because of the Company's temporary inventory reduction
activities taken earlier in the year; (iii) Vroom's lack of
adequate sales and support staff had resulted in degraded customer
experiences, lost sales opportunities, and a greater than 10%
increase in average days to sale for Vroom products; (iv) as a
result of all the foregoing, Vroom needed to invest tens of
millions of dollars in growing inventory and bolstering its sales
and support and logistics networks, materially impairing the
Company's short-term profitability; (v) as a result of all the
foregoing, Vroom was generating materially lower profits per
vehicle and poised to suffer accelerating losses and increased
negative cash flows, despite a robust online used car market; (vi)
as a result of all the foregoing, Vroom's inventory growth had far
outpaced the capabilities of its existing sales and support
personnel, creating a logistical bottleneck that threatened the
Company's profits, the value of its existing inventory, and its
ability to achieve positive cash flows; (vii) as a result of all
the foregoing, Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion of
existing inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and
overreliance on third-party sales support; (viii) as a result of
all the foregoing, Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate
existing inventory at fire sale prices; (ix) as a result of all the
foregoing, Vroom was on track to miss its already disappointing
fourth quarter 2020 profit and earnings guidance and such guidance
lacked any reasonable basis in fact; and (x) as a result of all the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 12, 2020, Vroom issued a release announcing its financial
results for the second quarter of 2020 (the "2Q20 Press Release").
That press release revealed that Vroom had achieved only $253.1
million in revenues for the quarter, a 3% year-over-year decline,
largely as a result of a 17% decline in the average vehicle selling
price per ecommerce unit. Additionally, the 2Q20 Press Release
stated that Vroom only expected to achieve an average total revenue
per ecommerce unit of just $23,500 for the third quarter, which
represented a 25% year-over-year average product price decline. As
a result of this lower average price, Vroom stated it achieved only
$314 in average gross profit per ecommerce vehicle, a 75%
year-over-year profit decline, and projected average gross profit
per unit of only $1,600 to $1,700 for the third quarter of 2020.
During the earnings call to discuss these results, Defendants
essentially confirmed that the pricing pressures facing the Company
were not short term but reflected a fundamental market shift toward
lower-priced vehicles.

On this news, Vroom's stock price fell $12.64 per share, or 18.32%,
to close at $56.37 per share on August 13, 2020, on usually heavy
trading volume of 6.8 million shares traded.

Then, on November 11, 2020, Vroom issued a release announcing its
third quarter 2020 financial results. That press release stated
that Vroom expected to suffer sharply higher losses in the fourth
quarter of 2020, with adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") losses projected to
increase from $36 million in the third quarter of 2020 to $48
million at the midpoint, a 33% sequential increase. During the
accompanying earnings call, Defendants revealed that Vroom was
suffering from a "bottleneck" in its sales support and needed to
invest heavily in building out the Company's sales support and
logistics networks to avoid constrained growth, despite the
favorable market environment.

On this news, Vroom's stock price fell $5.31 per share, or 13.01%,
to close at $35.49 per share on November 12, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume of 9.2 million shares traded.

Finally, on March 3, 2021, Vroom issued a release announcing its
fourth quarter and full year financial results (the "4Q/FY20 Press
Release"). That press release was the third consecutive adverse
report by the Company since going public and revealed operational
issues and financial results far worse than previously disclosed to
investors. For the quarter, the 4Q/FY20 Press Release stated that
Vroom suffered a net loss of $60.7 million, a 42% year-over-year
increase. This represented a $0.46 loss per share, which was
outside the range provided by Defendants and 20% worse than the
midpoint. The 4Q/FY20 Press Release also stated that Vroom suffered
a $55.9 million adjusted EBITDA loss during the quarter, which was
also outside the range provided by Defendants and $8 million worse
than the midpoint. The 4Q/FY20 Press Release further stated that
Vroom had achieved only $1,821 total gross profit per unit, which
was outside the range provided by Defendants and 13% below the
midpoint, and generated only $878 gross profit per vehicle, which
represented a 13% decline year-over-year.

During the earnings call to discuss the results held that same day,
Defendant Paul J. Hennessy ("Hennessy"), the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, revealed that Vroom was suffering from severe
sales backlogs because of inadequate sales and support staff, which
had materially impaired the Company's ability to sell existing
inventory. These backlogs, in addition to degrading the customer
experience, had led to substantially lower gross profits per unit
and caused the average days to sale per vehicle to increase 13%
year-over-year to seventy-seven days. Defendants acknowledged that
Vroom was operationally constrained and unable to keep up with
demand because of these sales constraints, which had forced the
Company to liquidate aging inventory at fire sale prices for a
significantly reduced profit or even at a loss, despite a
historically favorable online used car market. Defendants further
revealed that Vroom's sales deficiencies were so severe that the
deficiencies would continue to constrain the Company's profits well
into the first quarter of 2021, even though Vroom had purportedly
tripled its sales support staff. As Defendant Hennessy admitted,
"we bought more inventory than we could actually process and that
excess inventory needed to be moved in Q4 and will continue to be
moved in Q1."

Following these disclosures, Vroom's stock price fell $12.29 per
share, or 28%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume of 19.6 million shares traded.

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

WALMART INC: Smith Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rodger Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-60265,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on April 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00245-BP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel L. Oster, Esq.
          ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
          15192 Rosewood Street
          Leawood, KS 66224
          Phone: (913) 685-8000
          Fax: (913) 685-8001
          Email: joster@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

               - and -

          Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj, Esq.
          Nicholas Thaddeus Zbrzeznj, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          99 6th St SW
          Winter Haven, FL 33880
          Phone: (863) 656-6672
          Email: Lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com
                 nick@southernatlanticlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cristina Isabel Calvar, Esq.
          WINSRON, STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 294-5331
          Email: ccalvar@winston.com


WASHINGTON: Inmates Seek Provisional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2;
JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; JANE DOE 3; and all persons similarly
situated, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; NOTING
DATE: May 10 2021 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary of The Department of
Corrections, in his official capacity, the Defendants; and
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Utah Corporation, d.b.a KIRO Radio
97.3 FM; THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, d.b.a. The Tacoma News Tribune; and ANDREA KELLY, an
individual, Interested Parties, Case No. 4:21-cv-05059-TOR (E.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
provisional class certification in order to obtain preliminary
injunctive relief on behalf of the following proposed Class:

   "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary, gender
   non-conforming, and/or intersex in records in the possession of

   the Washington State Department of Corrections who are currently

   or were formerly incarcerated by the Washington State Department

   of Corrections."

In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel meet Rule 23(g)'s requirements
and should therefore be appointed class counsel. Counsel have
substantial experience handling class actions and complex
litigation, and they have done extensive work investigating and
prosecuting this action. Counsel are exceptionally well versed in
disability and constitutional law, and they have more than
sufficient resources to vigorously prosecute this case.

The Washington State Department of Corrections manages all
state-operated adult prisons and supervises adult inmates who live
in the community.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 8,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dwcyfs
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe Shaeffer, Esq.
          MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-1604
          Facsimile: (206) 343-3961
          E-mail: joe@mhb.com

               - and -

          Nancy Talner, Esq.
          Lisa Nowlin, Esq.
          Antoinette M. Davis, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          WASHINGTON FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 2728
          Seattle, WA 98111
          Telephone: (206) 624-2184
          E-mail: TALNER@aclu-wa.org
                  lnowlin@aclu-wa.org
                  tdavis@aclu-wa.org

               - and -

          Katherine M. Forster, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9538
          Facsimile: (213) 593-2838
          E-mail: Katherine.Forster@mto.com

               - and -

          Ethan D. Frenchman, Esq.
          Danny Waxwing, Esq.
          Heather McKimmie, Esq.
          David Carlson, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
          315 5th Avenue S, Suite 850
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 324-1521
          E-mail: ethanf@dr-wa.org
                  dannyw@dr-wa.org
                  heatherm@dr-wa.org
                  davidc@dr-wa.org

WELLS FARGO: Patel Files Suit in Southern District of Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank NA.
The case is styled as Michelle Deepak R. Patel, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank NA,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01837-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 15, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters
in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States
and overseas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Nobile, Esq.
          NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., L.P.A.
          4876 Cemetery Road
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Phone: (614) 529-8600
          Fax: (614) 529-8656
          Email: jenobile@ntlegal.com


WICHITA, KS: Progeny Files Suit in District of Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Wichita,
Kansas, et al. The case is styled as Progeny, a program of
Destination Innovations Inc.; Christopher Cooper, Elbert Costello,
Martel Costello, Jeremy Levy, Jr., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated; v. City of Wichita, Kansas; Chief Gordon
Ramsay, in his official capacity as Chief of the Wichita Police
Department; Lieutenant Chad Beard, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of the Gang Unit of the Wichita Police Department; Case
No. 6:21-cv-01100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan., April 15, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Wichita -- https://www.wichita.gov/ -- is the largest city in the
U.S. state of Kansas and the county seat of Sedgwick County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon Brett, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
          6701 W. 64th Street, Suite 210
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Phone: (609) 529-8775
          Email: sbrett@aclukansas.org

               - and -

          Teresa A. Woody, Esq.
          KANSAS APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC.
          211 East 8th Street, Suite D
          Lawrence, KS 66044
          Phone: (785) 251-8160
          Email: twoody@kansasappleseed.org



                            *********

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 ***