/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210519.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 94

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces Bailey Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Sielaff Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
ABLE RIGGING: Gemini Machine Suit Moved to Sup. N.Y., Suffolk Cty.
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class Action
ADBALLAH INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AGEISS INC: Faces Richan Suit Over Company's $212 Million Losses
AIR METHODS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Dyer Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Munoz Sues Over Honda Civics' AC System Defect
AMERICAN LICORICE: Sosa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMSTERDAM SUSHI: Faces Policao Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.

ANCIENT BRANDS: Bush Sues Over Misleading Broth Protein Content
APPLICATION SPECIALIST: Fails to Pay Overtime, Clarke Suit Says
APRIL CORP: Faces Policarpo Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ARCIMOTO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ASHGROVE MARKETING: Magnet RX Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York

ASSIGNMENT DESK: Cockman FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Cert.
ASSOCIATED SPACE: Lozano Sues Over Landscaping Staff's Unpaid Wages
ATERIAN INC: Tate Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
AXOS FINANCIAL: Young Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
BALDWIN COUNTY, AL: Property Owners Claim Government Overreach

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Connelly Sues Over Disclosed Drivers' License
BIG CITY: Faces Rosario Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Rates
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
BLUE CROSS: Settles Lawsuit for $2.7BB; Members Can File Claims
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Suit Seeks Class Certification

BOCHASANWASI SHRI: Kumar Suit Alleges Forced Labor, Unpaid Wages
BOX INC: Pension Fund Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Faces Quiazon Suit Over Unpaid Wages
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Family Health Says
BUENA VIDA: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Pharmacy Staff's Unpaid Wages

CANOPY GROWTH: Ortiz Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CAPITAL ONE: Masterson Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Discharge
CARING VOICE: MSP Suit Transferred From Massachusetts to Florida
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending

CASA SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Joined Shen & Baig Suit Under Appeal
CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit
CBOE GLOBAL: Dismissal of VIX-Related Class Suit Appealed
CEMIG: Class Suits Against Subsidiary Underway
CEMIG: Class Suits Over Electricity Supply Contracts Ongoing

CEMIG: Suit Over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant Ongoing
CEMIG: Unit's Appeal in Suit Over Tariff Increases Pending
CENTRAL YETEV: Juarez Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
CGP ENTERPRISES: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Martinez Suit Claims
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Announces Securities Class Action
CIC SERVICES: Prabhu Sues Over Unlawful Acts and Omissions
CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Pearl Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
CLIENT SERVICES: Seeks Time Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
CLIENT SERVICES: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Greifman FDCPA Suit

CLOVER HEALTH: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
CONUMSERXPRESS LLC: Schwartzenberger Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CORECIVIC INC: Breached Terms of Lease Agreement, Portview Says
CRAWFISH PROCESSING: Quinonez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Gates Says

CVI SGP: Cotte FDCPA Class Suit Removed to District of Utah
DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class for Teamsters Claim
DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
DOUROS MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DRAFTKINGS INC: Fails to Honor Winning Wagers, Cristman Suit Claims

DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Entry of Appearance for Ventures Trust Sought
DYNAMO AVIATION: Faces Calderon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
EAST SIDE: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Mastache Suit Alleges
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Palm Tran Suit
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline

ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Reply Brief for Class Status Bid Due June 4
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
FARMER BROS: Monegro Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
FIBROGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FIRST CREDIT: Dabbah Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey

FLORIDA: G.H. ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
FORD MOTOR: Faces Cunningham Suit Over Defective Trucks' Tailgate
FORD MOTOR: Rodriguez Sues Over Mustang Vehicles' Defective Harness
FRESH ON: Court Tosses Frank Bid to Certify Class of Servers
FRITO-LAY NORTH: Corn Chips' Lime Label "Deceptive," Barnett Claims

GARUDA LABS: Daniels Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Martell's 1st Amended Suit Denied
GENERAL MOTORS: Pankow Sues Over False, Deceptive Advertising
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Crawford Suit
GOGO INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation

GOLD POINT: Faces Acosta Suit Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Hart Suit Over Adjusters' Unpaid OT
HOME DEPOT: Almanzar Must File Class Status Bid by Feb. 9, 2022
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
INFORMATION RESOURCES: EPA Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status

ISABELLA GUZMAN: Greer's Ranch Files Suit in N.D. Texas
J-M MANUFACTURING: Hearing on CLL Class Cert Bid Resumes in May 20
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Lifshitz Law Announces Company Investigation
JUUL LABS: School Corp. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
JVST GROUP: Faces Vlad Suit Over Deceitful Business Practices

KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Wercberger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KPMG LLP: Objections to Exclusion Ruling in Cosby Suit Overruled
KPMG LLP: Tennessee District Court Certifies Class in Cosby Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Suit Says Macaroni, Cheese Products Contain Phthalates
KUCOIN: Williams Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Nov. 2

KUCOIN: Williams Seeks 60-Day Extension to Class Cert Deadlines
LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Arnold Suit Transferred to E.D. Arkansas
LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hamilton Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hayes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces Scott Employment Suit in Calif. State Court

MATTEL INC: Derivative Complaint Filed in Owen Securities Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Class Action Suit Fails Certification
MERIT MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Access ADA Suit Seeks Equal Access to Property
MIDLAND CREDIT: Alter Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letters

MIDLAND CREDIT: Fletcher Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MORFOSE USA: Conditioner Contains DMDM Hydantoin, Vlad Suit Says
N&C CLAIMS: Amoko Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cason Suit Over ERISA & LMRA Violations Tossed
NC AFFILIATED: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Meier Files Suit in District of Minnesota
NETGEAR INC: Settlement in Pham Suit Gets Final Approval
NHS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NMCI MEDICAL: Kulik Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
NORTH CENTRAL: Compton Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification

NURTURE INC: Faces Gothot Fraud Suit in Northern District of Ohio
OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Brunick Suit
OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Parkerson et al., Suit
PACTIV LLC: Rodriguez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
PARTSBASE INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Francis Suit Says

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PETER NYGARD: Former Foster Child in U.S. Class Action Comes Out
PLANNED LIFESTYLE: Faces Gebru Suit in California State Court
POST CONSUMER: Settles $15-M Class Lawsuit Over Mislabeled Cereals
PRESSED JUICERY: Lara Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Ahrendsen Sues Over Employee Stock Plan's Losses
QUALVOICE LLC: Frederick Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid OT
REPRO-MED SYSTEM: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Claims

REVCO SOLUTIONS: Suarez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
RICE AND NOODLES: Faces Ixtos Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
ROBERT A. BAFFERT: Beychok Sues Over RICO Act Violation
ROCHESTER, NY: Suit Seeks to Stop Violence Against People of Color
ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Ingram Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification

ROMANOFF FLOOR: Court OKs $1.375MM Settlement in Bailey Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Final OK of Washing Machine Suit Deal Affirmed
SANTA ROSA, CA: Reaches $1.9MM Settlement With Injured Protesters
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Barkus Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Wages
SNAP INC: Faces Bride Suit Over Creation of Unsafe Messaging Apps

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Court Issues Protective Order in Britt Suit
STAT TRANSCRIPTION: EBFC Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
TOUITOU INC: Alcazar Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
TUFF SHED: Drews Files Suit in California Superior Court
TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.

TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Carranza Class Suit v. ICE Recommended
US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing
USALLIANCE FEDERAL: Acevedo Sues Over Improper Charging of OD Fees
USC: Sex Abuse Payout Leaves Bitterness, Vast Disparities

VIRGINIA: New Overtime Law Authorizes Collective Class Actions
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WALNUT BREWERY: Mann Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
WESTFIELD NATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss M&E Bakery Class Suit
WHITE PINES: De Sa FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers

WP OPERATIONS: Clements Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
XEROX CORP: Ribbe Asks Court for Attorneys' Fees & Service Award
XPRESS RESTORATION: Underpays Technicians, Santamaria Suit Alleges
ZARA USA: Gillett Employee Class Wins Conditional Certification
ZOOM VIDEO: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces Bailey Suit Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01422-RMG (D.S.C., May 12, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Sielaff Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SIELAFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-1407-RMG (D.S.C., May 11, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

ABLE RIGGING: Gemini Machine Suit Moved to Sup. N.Y., Suffolk Cty.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEMINI MACHINE WORKS, INC., on behalf of itself and
on behalf of all others entitled to share in the funds received by
ABLE RIGGING CONTRACTORS, INC., as Trustee, in connection with the
improvement of real property known as 10 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York v. ABLE RIGGING CONTRACTORS, INC., STEVEN LAGANAS, and
STEVEN CHIRONIS, Case No. 654122/2020, was transferred from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, on May
10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Suffolk, assigned Case No. 000387/2021 to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and diversion of lien law trust
funds by failing to pay the Plaintiff in full for the services it
had performed related to the construction of a derrick crane system
and its components at 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York.

Gemini Machine Works, Inc. is a metal fabricator based in Nisku,
Canada.

Able Rigging Contractors, Inc. is a rigging, machinery moving,
transportation and warehousing company based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Brian H. Fischkin, Esq.
         OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
         1325 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212)451-2300

ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. CLAIR COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00988 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs Chicago &
Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund and New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension
Fund move the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a)
      and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. approving their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

      as Class Counsel.

Acadia Healthcare is a multinational behavioral healthcare
provider. It operates a network of over 584 facilities across the
United States, United Kingdom, and Puerto Rico.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wfPlF7 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
          J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
          Ting H. Liu, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
                  jgray@rgrdlaw.com
                  tliu@rgrdlaw.com

ADBALLAH INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abdallah
Incorporated. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Abdallah Incorporated,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04348 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).

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

Abdallah Candies -- https://www.abdallahcandies.com/ -- uses
quality ingredients and natural flavors to create a candy to
satisfy cravings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGEISS INC: Faces Richan Suit Over Company's $212 Million Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
TED S. RICHAN, individually and derivatively and on behalf of
AGEISS, INC., Plaintiff v. JEFFREY B. LAWRENCE, DONNA B. LAWRENCE,
and AGEISS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01222-WGY (D.P.R.,
May 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' efforts to cancel the contract
with the Republic of Ghana and terminate the Plaintiff from the
board of directors in order to serve their own personal interests
of attempting to rescind the sale of AGEISS, Inc. to the Plaintiff.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct, the company
suffered $212 million losses in gross revenues over three years and
approximately $12 million in profits before interest, taxes, and
debt.

AGEISS, Inc. is an environmental consulting services firm
headquartered in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Francisco E. Colon-Ramirez, Esq.
         PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C.
         1225 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1503
         San Juan, PR 00907
         E-mail: fecolon@pbnlaw.com
                 fecolon@colonramirez.com

AIR METHODS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Dyer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VAUGHN DYER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATIONS and ROCKY
MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-2309-DCN
(D.S.C.), Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, denies the
Defendants' motion to strike class allegations.

Air Methods provides emergent air ambulance services to patients
across the United States.  Rocky Mountain Holdings is a limited
liability company that, according to the complaint, owns and
operates Air Methods.  On Nov. 17, 2018, Plaintiff Dyer's wife and
minor child were involved in an accident with an EMS vehicle in
Beaufort County, South Carolina.  An Air Methods helicopter
airlifted Dyer's wife and child from the scene of the accident to a
hospital in Savannah, Georgia.  For the 40-mile transport, Air
Methods billed Dyer $53,224.96.

Plaintiff Dyer alleges that to collect its fee, Air Methods engages
in a practice called "balance billing," under which it collects a
portion of the charged fee from patients' insurance companies and
seeks payment of the outstanding balances by hiring or threatening
to hire debt collectors and filing breach-of-contract lawsuits
against delinquent patients in state courts.  It is unclear whether
Air Methods has sought payment from Dyer through such means.
According to Dyer, Air Methods charges patients, on average, around
four times the fair market value of its services.

On June 18, 2020, Dyer filed this declaratory judgment action on
behalf of himself and others who have similarly been billed for Air
Methods' emergency services in South Carolina.  The complaint
defines the proposed class as, "All persons billed by Defendants,
or who paid a bill from Defendants, for air medical transport that
Defendants carried out from a location in South Carolina."

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and the proposed class, and specifically requests that the
Court make the following declarations:

      [1.] The Defendants and the Plaintiff, and the Class did not
enter into any contract, either express or implied-in-fact, for
Plaintiff and the Class to pay the amounts charged by the
Defendants for the transportation services it provided;

      [2.] The Defendants have engaged in collection efforts
against Plaintiff and the Class for amounts that the Plaintiff and
the Class did not contractually agree to pay;

      [3.] The Defendants have engaged in collection efforts
against the Plaintiff and the Class for amounts concerning which
there was no mutual assent manifest by the Plaintiff and the Class
prior to the rendering of the services charged for;

      [4.] The Airline Deregulation Act pre-empts the imposition of
any state common law contract principles that impose terms upon
Plaintiff which those parties did not express assent prior to the
air medical transportation services provided to them;

      [5.] The emergency medical circumstances of Defendants
medical air transportation were such that patients transported can
be presumed not entered into any contract for transportation, and
in particular no agreement to pay whatever Defendants charged;

      [6.] Since the Airline Deregulation Act pre-empts application
of state law imposing or implying any agreement to pay the
Defendants charged amounts;

      [7.] The Plaintiff's third party payors' determinations of
the reasonable value of the Defendants' services provided is prima
facie evidence of reasonableness; and

      [8.] The Defendants' collection of any sums greater than the
amount determined as reasonable by objective, and typically applied
formula, was unlawful, unjustly enriched Defendants, and should be
disgorged.

As further relief, the complaint seeks "a prospective order from
the Court requiring the Defendants to: (1) cease all balance
billing and collection efforts with respect to outstanding bills
for air medical transportation service until this Court makes a
determination of the methodology for determining their reasonable
value; and (2) account for all sums collected for air medical
transportation services provided to the Plaintiff.

On Sept. 14, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to change venue,
dismiss, or stay proceedings, which the Court denied on Dec. 17,
2020.  There, the Court grouped Dyer's proposed declarations into
two categories: (1) declarations that Air Methods and the
Plaintiffs did not enter into express or implied-in-fact contracts
for air ambulance services, and (2) declarations that the ADA would
preempt a court from imposing implied-in-law contracts or other
similar quasi-contractual obligations onto the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants.  The Court found that both categories present
cognizable declarations for its consideration and resolved to
exercise its discretion to so consider them under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201.

On April 1, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to strike the
complaint's class allegations.  On April 15, 2021, Dyer responded,
and on April 22, 2021, the Defendants replied.  Judge Norton held a
hearing on the matter on May 4, 2021.

The Defendants' motion asks the Court to strike Dyer's class
allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D), arguing that "based
on the allegations in the Complaint, even if true, Dyer's requested
declarations cannot be made on a class-wide basis.

Judge Norton explains that class certification is governed by Rule
23, under which a proposed class must both satisfy the
prerequisites for certification outlined in Rule 23(a) and
constitute one of the permissible "types of class actions" under
Rule 23(b).  The Defendants contend that it would be impossible for
Dyer's proposed class to satisfy either Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b),
meaning that the court should strike the class allegations.

Judge Norton examines the plausibility of Dyer's proposed class
under Rule 23(a) and then turns to Rule 23(b).  Because
certification is conceivable on both fronts, he denies the
Defendants' motion.

Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, Judge Norton holds
that there is a clear possibility, at the very least, that the
proposed class will satisfy the commonality and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a).  Certainly, the proposed class's
ability to satisfy Rule 23(a) is far from impossible.  Accordingly,
the law does not permit the court to divest Dyer of his "essential"
right to "be afforded a full opportunity to develop a record
containing all the facts pertaining to the suggested class and its
representatives."  Thus, the Judge rejects the Defendants'
arguments.

In addition, based on the allegations of the complaint and without
the benefit of discovery, the Judge cannot conclude that "it will
be impossible to certify the class alleged by the Plaintiff
regardless of the facts the Plaintiff may be able to prove."  Dyer,
through discovery, could easily prove facts that demonstrate his
adequacy as a representative and the class' satisfaction of Rules
23(a) and 23(b).  Because Dyer "could" make these showings, the
Judge must deny the motion to strike class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yv798599 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Munoz Sues Over Honda Civics' AC System Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMADO MUNOZ, CAROLYN HEIER, BEN HU, GARY TETRAULT, MATTHEW
ROBINSON, MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, FRANK COSTOBILE, RACHEL FAIRCHILD,
JAMES TILLERY, and LINGYAN YIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC., and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04030 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, breach of express and implied warranties under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, negligence, unjust enrichment,
and violations of state consumer protection statutes and deceptive
trade practices laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
design, manufacturing, and distribution of 2016-2019 model year
Honda Civics vehicles with defective air conditioning (AC) systems.
Specifically, the Class vehicles suffer from a serious defect in
materials, workmanship and/or design that cause the AC systems to
(a) crack and leak refrigerant; (b) lose pressure within the AC
System; and (c) fail to cool vehicle passenger cabins. Although the
defect may first manifest as leaks in the vehicles' condensers or
compressors, it also causes other vehicle components to fail. Once
it manifests, the defect prohibits the Plaintiffs and Class members
from using their AC systems and also imposes safety risks by
exposing them to unsafe temperatures and decreasing visibility due
a failed AC system's inability to clear foggy vehicle windshields,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
losses. Had the Defendants disclosed the defect to them, they would
not have bought the Class vehicles or would have paid less for
them.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a North American subsidiary of
automobile manufacturer Honda Motor Company, Ltd., with its
principal place of business in Torrance, California.

Honda North America, Inc. is a North American subsidiary of
automobile manufacturer Honda Motor Company, Ltd., with its
principal place of business in Torrance, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormack Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         Lisa A. White, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

         Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
         CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
         150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 782 4880
         Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
         E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

                - and –

         Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
         CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
         205 N. Monroe St.
         Media, PA 19063
         Telephone: (215) 864-2800
         Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
         E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

                - and –

         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 gabramson@bm.net

AMERICAN LICORICE: Sosa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Yony Sosa, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. AMERICAN LICORICE CO, Case No. 1:21-cv-04347
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the Defendant's website --
https://shop.americanlicorice.com/ -- is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant operates the American Licorice Company online retail
store as well as the American Licorice Company website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: 212.228.9795
          Fax: 212.982.6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal


AMSTERDAM SUSHI: Faces Policao Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARISTEO POLICAO, BERNARDO ESPINOBAIROS, CRUZ GARCIA MARQUEZ, and
JAVIER DIAZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMSTERDAM SUSHI INC. D/B/A
AMSTERDAM SUSHI, AMSTERDAM SUSHI NYC INC D/B/A AMSTERDAM SUSHI,
MING HUI LIU, AND LUCY LIU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04151
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Plaintiffs Policao, Espinobairos, Cruz Garcia, and Diaz Sanchez
worked as delivery men at Amsterdam Sushi in New York, New York
from January 1, 2020 to April 2021, from January 1, 2020 to October
2020, from June 1, 2020 until the present, and from October 2019 to
August 2020, respectively.

Amsterdam Sushi Inc. is an owner and operator of a sushi restaurant
under the name Amsterdam Sushi located at 1518 Amsterdam Avenue,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

ANCIENT BRANDS: Bush Sues Over Misleading Broth Protein Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIEDRE BUSH AND RAQUEL DIAZ on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. ANCIENT BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
5:21-cv-00390-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) is a consumer class
action brought on behalf of consumers who purchased any of the
Defendant's Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein products.

The products includes Vanilla, Chocolate, Pure, Turmeric, Vanilla,
Coffee, Banana, or any other limited, discontinued, or seasonal
flavors, and any other Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein
products that make a protein claim but fail to state the amount of
protein as a percentage of daily value and/or as calculated by the
Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score method.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misleads consumers into
thinking that its Product will benefit them as a result of its
advertised protein content when in fact the quality of the protein
in the Product largely indigestible to the human body and provides
little to no actual benefit to consumers. The Protein Digestibility
Amino Acid Corrected Score is critically important because each
gram of protein is not created equal. Two products containing
similar grams of protein may have different Protein Digestibility
Amino Acid Corrected Score based upon the type of protein; low
quality proteins will produce a lower daily value percentage, the
suit says.

In this case, Defendant allegedly engaged in unfair and/or
deceptive business practices by intentionally misrepresenting the
nature and quality of the Product on the Product label and was
consequently unjustly enriched. Specifically, Defendant misleads
consumers into thinking that its Product will benefit them as a
result of its advertised protein content of 20 grams per serving
when in fact the quality of the protein in the Product is largely
indigestible to the human body and provides little to no actual
benefit to consumers that expect from protein products. If the
Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score were accurately
calculated and provided to the consumer, consumers would know
this.

The Plaintiffs and each of the Class Members accordingly suffered
an injury in fact caused by the false, fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive, and misleading practices set forth herein, and seek
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

The Defendant designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, and
sold the Products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI
          PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265

APPLICATION SPECIALIST: Fails to Pay Overtime, Clarke Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CLARKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLICATION SPECIALIST KOMPANY, INC. d/b/a
JUSTASK.NET; and MICHAEL MADDOX; AMY MUMBY; JUSTIN KIKENDALL; and
JUSTIN LARSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00404 (W.D. Mich., May
13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan Workforce Opportunity
Wage Act, and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately November
13, 2017 to February 10, 2020 as a tier 2 technician and then later
as a team leader.

Application Specialist Kompany, Inc., doing business as
Justask.net, is an information technology services company, with
its principal place of business located at 316 Moores River Drive
Lansing, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

                  
         Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
         AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
         600 28th St. SW
         Wyoming, MI 49509
         Telephone: (616) 257-6807
         E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

APRIL CORP: Faces Policarpo Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Raul Policarpo, and Natalio Ceballos, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APRIL CORP.,
D/B/A/TERRA MARKET, BLANCA GONZALEZ, and JOHN DOES #1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04210 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
stockers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Policarpo and Mr. Ceballos were employed as stockers at Terra
Market in New York, New York from approximately 2016 until
September 17, 2020 and from approximately August 6, 2017 until
August 8, 2020, respectively.

April Corp., doing business as Terra Market, is an owner and
operator of a wholesale and retail produce market, with a principal
place of business at 533 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

ARCIMOTO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Arcimoto, Inc. and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Arcimoto securities between February 14, 2018 and March
22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/fuv.               

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) the preorders of Arcimoto's Fun Utility Vehicles
("FUVs") were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units
delivered out of an alleged preorder of 422; (2) Arcimoto failed to
disclose to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered
were under safety recall; (3) Arcimoto's largest customer,
R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD
Capital, LLC; (4) Arcimoto's partnership with HULA was an
undisclosed related party transaction; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/fuv or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Arcimoto
you have until June 18, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


ASHGROVE MARKETING: Magnet RX Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashgrove Marketing
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Magnet RX, LLC d/b/a Drug Rite
Pharmacy, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Ashgrove Marketing Agency, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02691 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).

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

Ashgrove Marketing -- https://ashgrovemarketing.com/ -- publishes
millions of custom calendars every year for small, family-owned
businesses to Fortune 500 corporations.[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


ASSIGNMENT DESK: Cockman FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katherine Cockman, On
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Assignment
Desk Works LLC, Patrick Bryant, and Shawn Moffatt, Case No.
2:19-cv-03082-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification
is
      granted;

   2. The Defendants' Motion for Relief from Mediation is denied as

      moot, and the parties are hereby instructed to schedule and
      complete mediation within 60 days of the entry of this
Order;

   3. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Patrick
      Bryant is granted;

   4. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied;

   5. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in
      part  and denied in part; and

   6. The Defendants' Motion to Strike and/or Deny Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and/or Award Sanctions to

      the Defendants is denied.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the required showing for
conditional certification of a collective action. The Defendants do
not contest that all PCs at ADW were subject to the same overtime
pay policy and that all PCs were classified as "exempt." Nor do
Defendants contest that PCs were required to be "on call" after
work hours and on weekends, and that PCs regularly worked more than
40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

In this action, the Plaintiff Cockman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, seeks recovery for alleged violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Additionally, Cockman asserts individual causes of action for
retaliation under the FLSA and for breach of contract.

In 1997, the Defendant Bryant along with a business partner started
a company called Go to Team (GTT). GTT provides broadcast
television services to networks and other producers of television
and video production. GTT has a staff of cameramen and other
production specialists.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eSCjY9 at no extra charge.[CC]

ASSOCIATED SPACE: Lozano Sues Over Landscaping Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED SPACE DESIGN, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01988-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated landscaping workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Associated Space Design, Inc. is a company that provides
architectural and interior designing services, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         James M. McCabe, Esq.
         Graham White, Esq.
         THE MCCABE LAW FIRM, LLC
         3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
         Atlanta, GA 30326
         Telephone: (404) 250-3233
         Facsimile: (404) 400-1724
         E-mail: jim@mccabe-lawfirm.com

ATERIAN INC: Tate Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATERIAN, INC., YANIV SARIG, and FABRICE HAMAIDE, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04323 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021), is brought on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aterian, Inc.
(formerly known as Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc.) securities between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive; and is brought on
behalf of the Class for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the 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) the Company's organic growth is
plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions
were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources;
(iii) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a
flawed product that lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses
rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their
product offerings; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of Aterian at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.

Aterian purports to be a "technology-enabled consumer products
platform that builds, acquires and partners with e-commerce
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Fax: (617) 507-6020
          Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 steti@blockleviton.com


AXOS FINANCIAL: Young Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Terrance Druetta Young, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v.
AXOS FINANCIAL, INC.; a Delaware corporation; AXOS BANK, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No.
34-2021-00019535-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., May 3,
2021), is brought to challenge the Defendants' systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the stated
provisions of the Labor Code against the identified group of
employees.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes the Defendants jointly and
severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in failing to
pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly
calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to
provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and
owing during employment and upon termination of employment, failing
to reimburse all necessary business expenses, and failing to
provide one day's rest in seven, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory time
period.

The Defendants are licensed to do business and actually doing
business in the State of California, including the County of San
Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259


BALDWIN COUNTY, AL: Property Owners Claim Government Overreach
--------------------------------------------------------------
mynbc15.com reports that the challenge to a new planning district
continues in Baldwin County.

Long time property owners, some whose families have owned property
in and around Point Clear for decades, have joined a class action
lawsuit sanctioned by the NAACP.

Legacy landowners are demanding to be left alone.

It all started with an election back in December, just two days
before New Years Eve, when few people were paying attention and
have been out of town or spending time with family.

Property owners say it wasn't well advertised and in the end it
created a new district known as Planning District 19.

"If you have a storm came through here or a fire you would be faced
with trying to rebuild it back. Then they're talking about an
overlay district. As long as it stays in their hands your hands are
tied. That's just a bunch of red tape, " said property owner Willie
Williams.

Williams says answering to someone else to make changes to his own
property, property that's been owned by some families for
generations, sounds like government overreach.

The NAACP agrees.

"They're not just going to step on your rights. respect the
citizens, the taxpayers, the land owners, they have a voice," said
Alec Barnett with the Baldwin County NAACP.

People who live here south of Fairhope say they will take to the
streets next week.

"We are going to have an hour rally to let the county commission
know this is not well looked at. People in this community do not
want that. Small groups of folks cannot dictate what I can do with
my property," said Williams.

County officials say the election back in December was well
advertised and they hope to have a productive dialogue with
property owners moving forward. [GN]




BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Connelly Sues Over Disclosed Drivers' License
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYANT CONNELLY and BELEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC.;
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY;
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01152-GLS (D. Md., May 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and breach of
the Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard the
Personal Identifying Information (PII) of millions of current and
former GEICO customers. On or about April 9, 2021, GEICO announced
by letters entitled "Notice of Data Disclosure" to its policy
holders that between November 24, 2020 and March 1, 2021, GEICO's
website had provided unauthorized access to policyholders' driver's
license numbers and that said information could be used to
fraudulently apply for unemployment benefits in such policyholders'
names. The data disclosure could have been avoided through basic
security measures, authentications, and training. The disclosure
was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect PII, the suit contends.

Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
holding company, headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company, with its headquarters located in Chevy Chase,
Maryland.

GEICO Casualty Company is an insurance company, with its
headquarters located in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

GEICO Indemnity Company is an insurance company, with its
headquarters located in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

GEICO General Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
headquarters located in Chevy Chase, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
         KELLY GUZZO, PLC
         3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (703) 424-7572
         Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
         E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

                - and –

         E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
         John Albanese, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         43 S.E. Main Street, Suite 505
         Minneapolis, MN 55414
         Telephone: (612) 594-5999
         E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                 jalbanese@bm.net

                - and –

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

BIG CITY: Faces Rosario Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rosario, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BIG CITY MANAGEMENT, INC., 106-108 CONVENT BCR, LLC,
110 CONVENT BCR, LLC, and KOBI ZAMIR, Case No. 1:21-cv-04336
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law against the
Defendants for willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff wages at the
applicable overtime rates, and for willfully failing to proffer
wage notice and wage statements.

According to the complaint, as of 2014, the Plaintiff superintended
a building that contained approximately 35 units. In 2017, the
Defendants directed the Plaintiff to oversee two buildings,
overseeing approximately 65 units. In 2019, Defendants transferred
the Plaintiff to superintend two buildings located at Convent
Street, where the Plaintiff also oversaw approximately 65 units.
The Plaintiff also regularly worked two hours on Saturday and on
occasion additional hours on Sunday. For about the first two years
of his employment, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff Rosario $400
per week, regardless of the number of hours he actually worked.
Thereafter, up and until January 2019, the Defendants paid the
Plaintiff Rosario $500 per week, regardless of the number of hours
he actually worked. After January 2019 and up until his separation
from employment on October 14, 2019 the Defendants paid Plaintiff
Rosario $600 per week, regardless of the number of hours he
actually worked.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants initially as a maintenance
worker and later as a building superintendent starting in 2019 and
was responsible for between 35 and 65 apartments in buildings the
Defendants managed in Manhattan.

Big City Management, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 571-0700
          Fax: (212) 505-2001


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company's
motion to dismiss the purported shareholder class action suit
related to Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec, is pending.

On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President of Worldwide Research and Development and its Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging
violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics
License Application (BLA) for valoctocogene roxaparvovec by
purportedly failing to disclose that differences between the
Company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical studies limited the
ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was
foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not
approve the BLA without additional data.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.

In December 2020, the court hearing the case appointed
Arbejdsmarkedets Tillagspension as lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2021,
dropping the company's Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, and
asserting that the Company misled investors about the progress of
the FDA's review of the company's BLA for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec.

The company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on April
22, 2021.

BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we
intend to vigorously defend this action."

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that
specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various
medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company
is based in San Rafael, California.


BLUE CROSS: Settles Lawsuit for $2.7BB; Members Can File Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
jamestownsun.com reports that the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association and its affiliated companies have agreed to a $2.67
billion settlement in a class-action lawsuit that alleged the
health insurer engaged in anti-competitive practices that hurt
consumers.

The association and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota reject
the claims in the lawsuit, but agreed to the settlement, which
calls for some operating changes and payment to members of the
class.

"Settling now is the right action at the right time because it
allows us to remain focused on the goal we have had for more than
80 years - improving access to quality health care for all
Americans and the health of our local communities," Blue Cross Blue
Shield of North Dakota spokeswoman Andrea Dineen said in a
statement.

A class notice campaign has begun to ensure that individuals and
companies that might be members of the damages class are notified
of their rights and know where they can learn about the settlement
as well as file a claim, she said.

The notifications are handled by the plaintiffs through their
claims administrator, JND Legal Administration. The campaign also
will include print, television, radio, online and social media
advertising.

A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 in U.S. District Court in
Alabama by providers as well as by individual and small-group
purchasers of health insurance. The lawsuits contend that exclusive
territorial agreements, in which Blue Cross Blue Shield plans agree
to stick to their own territories, violate federal antitrust laws.

Most of the 37 Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in the United States
limit their operations to a single state, including those in North
Dakota and Minnesota.

The only reason for the self-imposed geographical marketing
restrictions, the providers' lawsuit contends, is to protect the
insurers from competition. The restrictions are maintained by an
illegal "market allocation conspiracy," the doctors and clinics
argue.

At the time the lawsuits were filed, Blue Cross Blue Shield of
North Dakota commanded a statewide market share of 56%, according
to the providers' lawsuit.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota's market share was 44%
statewide, but in certain areas ran higher, including 56% in the
Rochester area, 48% in the St. Cloud area and 46% in the Duluth
area, according to figures cited by the providers' lawsuit.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment about the settlement, but posted a statement on
its website. "While we reject claims made by the plaintiffs in the
case, we agreed to provide monetary payments to eligible
individuals and groups and to make some operational changes across
the Blue Cross and Blue Shield system."

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota is unable to estimate any
potential payout amounts, since each claimant's award is subject to
eligibility and fee analysis, which will be done by the claims
administrator, Dineen said.

"That analysis will be provided to the claimants once the notice
period has lapsed," she said.

Those covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield can learn more about the
settlement by going online to www.bcbssettlement.com or by calling
1-888-681-1142. [GN]


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Melissa S. Landon, Edward
P. Landon, Shane Auxier, and Mu Hpare, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited,
Inc. and Bluegreen Vacations Corporation f/k/a Bluegreen
Corporation, Case No. 18-CV-994-bhl (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "(a) any person (b) who purchased in Wisconsin (c) from
      either defendant (d) one or more timeshares for property
      outside of Wisconsin (e) on or after June 28, 2012 (a date
      six years prior to the filing of this action) and on or
      before April 17, 2017 (the date when the Defendants began
      using arbitration clauses);" and

   2. appointing Consumer Justice Law Center, LLC and Edelman,
      Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class.

Bluegreen is a leisure, travel and tourism company based out of
4960 Conference Way North Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33MmUlN at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          DeVonna Joy, Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW CENTER, LLC
          P.O. Box 51, Big Bend, WI 53103-0051
          Telephone: (262) 662-3982
          E-mail: consumerjusticelaw@gmail.com
                  anddjlaw@wi.rr.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Dulijaza (Julie) Clark, Esq.
          David Kim, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail address for service: courtecl@edcombs.com

BOCHASANWASI SHRI: Kumar Suit Alleges Forced Labor, Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MUKESH KUMAR, KESHAV KUMAR, DEVI LAAL, NIRANJAN, PAPPU, and
BRAJENDRA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BOCHASANWASI SHRI AKSHAR PURUSHOTTAM
SWAMINARAYAN SANSTHA, INC., BAPS MERCER LLC, BAPS ROBBINSVILLE LLC,
BAPS FELLOWSHIP SERVICES, INC., BHARAT DOE a/k/a BHARAT BHAI,
PANKAJ PATEL, KANU PATEL, and SWAMI PRASANAND, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-11048 (D.N.J., May 11, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New Jersey wage and hour
laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants recruited the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated Indian nationals to work at the
temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey and subjected them to forced
labor and also failed to pay them appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs are Indian nationals who were recruited by the
Defendants and/or Defendants' agents to work as construction and/or
stone workers under R-1 visas at the temple in Robbinsville, New
Jersey at various times between May 11, 2011 and the present.

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Inc. is
a global non-religious, charitable organization doing business in
New Jersey.

BAPS Mercer LLC is a limited liability corporation with its
business address at 81 Suttons Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey.

BAPS Robbinsville LLC is a limited liability corporation with its
business address at 81 Suttons Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey.

BAPS Fellowship Services, Inc. is a member or manager of BAPS
Robbinsville, with its business address at 81 Suttons Lane,
Piscataway, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Andrew Glenn, Esq.
         JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP
         300 Carnegie Center, Ste. 150
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (201) 687-9977
         E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com

                - and –

         Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
         KAKALEC LAW PLLC
         195 Montague Street, 14th Floor
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (212) 705-8730
         E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com

                - and –

         Daniel Werner, Esq.
         RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
         315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
         Decatur, GA 30030
         Telephone: (678) 271-0304
         E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com

BOX INC: Pension Fund Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TRADES PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARON LEVIE,
DANA EVAN, PETER LEAV, KIM HAMMONDS, DAN LEVIN, BETHANY MAYER, SUE
BARSAMIAN, CARL BASS, JACK LAZAR, and BOX, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2021-0418 (Del. Ch., May 12, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendants' approval of an investment
agreement and self-tender offer to finance an unnecessary and
unfair preferred stock investment. These transactions are bereft
any bona fide strategic rationale and represent a pretext to buy
the vote of a significant portion of the common stock eligible to
vote in director elections. The Defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in voting buying and disenfranchising
the company's stockholders in order to protect their positions.

Box, Inc. is an American internet company with its headquarters in
Redwood City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Ned Weinberger, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 573-2540

               - and –

         David MacIsaac, Esq.
         John Vielandi, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 907-0700

               - and –

         Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
         Daniel Meyer, Esq.
         Joseph Caputo, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400

BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Faces Quiazon Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE QUIAZON and MARITA QUIAZON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINK'S INCORPORATED;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV18039
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys
General Act by failing to pay all wages, failing to provide lawful
meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failing to authorize
or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu
thereof, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees.

Brink's Incorporated is an American private security and protection
company, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                                   
   
                          
         Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
         Kashif Haque, Esq.
         Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
         Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
         AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
         9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 379-6250
         Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
         E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Family Health Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HEALTH PHYSICAL MEDICINE, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00997-JRA (N.D. Ohio, May
13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending advertisements via
facsimile to the Plaintiff's fax machine without prior consent.

Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC is a company that operates a
physical medicine/chiropractic clinic in Alliance, Ohio.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. is an owner and/or operator of an
assisted living facility, with its principal place of business in
Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

                          
         George D. Jonson, Esq.
         Matthew W. Stubbs, Esq.
         MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
         600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 241-4722
         Facsimile: (513) 768-9227
         E-mail: gjonson@mojolaw.com
                 mstubbs@mojolaw.com

BUENA VIDA: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Pharmacy Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALMAZO-RAMIREZ, ERIK SUAREZ, and NICK GIOULES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUENA
VIDA PHARMACY, INC.; JACKSON HEIGHTS PHARMACY INC.; LA GRAN
FARMACIA INC.; THE TRUMP PHARMACY INC.; NUEVA LUZ PHARMACY II INC.;
ABRAHAM E. VARGAS a/k/a Abraham Vargas; and SARAH ROSE VARGAS a/k/a
Sarah R. Vargas a/k/a Sarah Vargas, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02678 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to
provide a wage notice at time of hire, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

Mr. Ramirez, Mr. Suarez, and Mr. Gioules were employed by the
Defendants as a pharmacy technician; stocker, cashier, and driver;
and a pharmacist in New York from 2016 until November 4, 2019, from
October 2018 until December 1, 2019, and from May 15, 2019 until
September 27, 2019, respectively.

Buena Vida Pharmacy, Inc. is a pharmacy located at 91-08 37th
Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York.

Jackson Heights Pharmacy Inc. is a pharmacy with its principal
place of business located at 91-10 37th Avenue, Jackson Heights,
New York.

La Gran Farmacia Inc. is a provider of medical supplies and
equipment, with its principal place of business located at 91-10
37th Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York.

The Trump Pharmacy Inc. is a pharmacy with its principal place of
business located at 85-26 37th Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York.

Nueva Luz Pharmacy II Inc. is a pharmacy located at 23-25 91st
Street, Floor 1, East Elmhurst, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         John Troy, Esq.
         Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

CANOPY GROWTH: Ortiz Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDUARDO ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. CANOPY GROWTH
CORPORATION, BRUCE LINTON, MARK ZEKULIN, MIKE LEE, TIM SAUNDERS,
DAVID KLEIN and RADE KOVACEVIC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-20543-KM-ESK (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs bring a putative securities class action against
Canopy, the largest cannabis company in Canada, and against
numerous individuals who served or are currently serving in
high-ranking positions with that company.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Canopy failed to timely disclose numerous facts, and that as a
result the company's stock price was artificially inflated.
Ultimately, they claim, the truth came out and Canopy's stock price
fell precipitously.

The Plaintiffs are a class of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Canopy securities
sold on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") between June 27, 2018
and May 28, 2020, inclusive.  They bring claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action via a complaint filed on Nov.
20, 2019.  Judge McNulty appointed Sultan Group and Pendola and
Lurie as the Lead Plaintiff on Feb. 10, 2020, pursuant to a
stipulation among the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs requested leave to file an amended complaint on
April 14, 2020, which Judge McNulty granted.  They filed that First
Amended Complaint on June 4, 2020.

The Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss on Aug. 4, 2020.
That motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the Plaintiffs' filing
of their SAC on Oct. 9, 2020, with leave of Magistrate Judge Kiel.

The Defendants filed the now-operative motion to dismiss on Nov.
23, 2020; the Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 7, 2021;
and the Defendants filed a reply brief on Feb. 8, 2021.

Discussion

A. False or Misleading Statements

The Plaintiffs allege a variety of misstatements, which can be
divided into five categories: (1) Canopy's numerous statements that
their inventories were scaled to meet management's expectation of
market demands; (2) Canopy's disclosure of "Risk Factors" in its
AIFs and MD&As without cautions regarding inventory buildup or
excess production facilities, and in general its failure to
disclose that scaling inventory and production facilities posed a
material risk to the company; (3) Canopy's valuation of its
inventory on its financial statements without impairments for
inventory excess; (4) Canopy's reporting of revenue without
including reserves for returns or price concessions and without
adequately disclosing the existence of absolute rights of return
and the ability of contracting partners to essentially cancel the
contracts at will; and (5) numerous statements by the individual
Defendants.  The fundamental alleged misrepresentation underlying
the majority of these statements is that Canopy continually assured
investors that its inventory levels were based on market demand,
while in truth the company was brand building and covering up its
inability to grow high-quality marijuana.

The Defendants counter these allegations with a variety of
defenses: That the statements were not misleading because they
disclosed all of the relevant risks, that they were not required to
disclose operational issues, that the allegations are not well
pled, that the allegations relating to inventory are not
actionable, and that many of the statements in question are
protected under the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions.

First, Judge McNulty eliminates those alleged misstatements to the
extent that they are protected by the PSLRA Safe Harbor provision.
Second, he considers Canopy's alleged misstatements regarding
market demand and the risks posed by its inventory and production
facility buildup.  Third, he analyzes the alleged misstatements in
Canopy's consolidated financial statements relating to inventory
valuations and revenue recognition, under the Supreme Court's
decision in Omnicare.

Judge McNulty concludes that that the Plaintiffs have stated a
claim that Canopy omitted a material fact by failing to disclose
these contractual provisions.  Those omissions made Canopy's
disclosures misleading.  The existence of those provisions is
plausibly a material fact which should have been disclosed under
IFRS 15, because investors needed to know about them in order to
appreciate the uncertainty of Canopy's revenue.  Canopy could have
concluded that its revenue was reliable despite those provisions,
but its failure to inform investors of them prevented investors
from fully understanding the basis for Canopy's opinion.

B. Scienter

To evaluate whether a complaint adequately pleads scienter, a court
must consider inferences urged by the plaintiff as well as
"competing inferences rationally drawn from the facts alleged."  A
"strong" inference, required to plead scienter, is "more than
merely plausible or reasonable -- it must be cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.  The
inference need not be irrefutable, i.e., of the 'smoking-gun'
genre, or even the 'most plausible of competing inferences.'"  The
Court must consider the complaint as a whole, rather than
individual allegation by individual allegation.

Judge McNulty opines that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts
to establish that the Defendants made materially false or
misleading statements because they: (1) failed to disclose an
oversupply of inventory which constituted a material risk to the
company; (2) issued financial statements containing material
misstatements regarding their inventory valuations; and (3) failed
to disclose that their contracts were subject to absolute rights of
return and subject to renegotiation at provinces' sole discretion,
thus creating a significant risk of price concessions.  Thus, in
order to conclude that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim,
the Judge must find that they plead scienter with particularity
with respect to each of those misstatements and that those
allegations give rise to a "strong inference" of scienter.

The Plaintiffs do not allege any facts indicating that the
Defendants had a particular, non-generic motive to misrepresent.
Their complaint will only survive the motion to dismiss if they
allege specific facts that constitute strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

Judge McNulty finds that it is quite plausible that the company was
aware of the provisions and understood their significance, and thus
was at least reckless in declining to disclose their existence.
However, there is no realistic dispute that Canopy's executives
were aware of production and inventory issues.  The Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged that they were.  The sole issue is a judgment
call about the point at which those issues, which were under
investigation, instantiated themselves as problems which the
company was required to disclose.  The Judge finds that that the
Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to indicate that Canopy,
possessing scienter, failed to disclose any of the alleged
production or inventory problems in a timely manner.

C. Section 20(a) Allegations

Since the Plaintiffs fail to adequately state Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims, Judge McNulty dismisses the Section 20(a) claims
against the individual Defendants.  He explains that liability
under Section 20(a) is predicated upon an independent violation of
"this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder."  Claims
under Section 20(a), therefore, are "derivative--requiring proof of
a separate underlying violation of the Exchange Act."  The
Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a predicate violation of
Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, so the judge dismisses their 20(a)
claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McNulty grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice to the filing of a proposed
Third Amended Complaint within 30 days.  An appropriate order
accompanies the opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bvkkest4 from Leagle.com.


CAPITAL ONE: Masterson Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Discharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN MASTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC; CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; AND CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00300 (E.D. Va., May 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act
by terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated risk managers in order to hire employees in
their 20's and failing to compensate them overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Masterson was employed as a risk manager by Capital One from
2013 until her termination on March 19, 2020.

Capital One Services, LLC is a financial services provider, with
its principal office in Virginia.

Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding
company, with its principal office in Virginia.

Capital One, National Association is a banking company, with its
principal office in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
         Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
         Zev Antell, Esq.
         Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
         BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
         140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 648-4848
         Facsimile: (804) 237-0413

CARING VOICE: MSP Suit Transferred From Massachusetts to Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC, et al., v. Caring Voice Coalition, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-11418 (Filed July 27, 2020) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 6,
2021.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-21317-DPG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' conspiratorial scheme to
increase the unit price and volume of certain drugs that UT
manufactures and for which Plaintiffs' assignors ("Assignors") and
the proposed Class paid on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, by
circumventing the Congressionally mandated, co-payment requirement
aimed at suppressing price inflation and non-medically necessary
purchases in violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

The products at issue are medicines that UT manufactures and
markets to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension ("PAH") --
including Adcirca, Remodulin, Tyvaso, and Orenitram (collectively,
the "UT Hypertension Drugs").

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

Caring Voice Coalition, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization provides services such as financial help,
prescription discount card, social security disability, alternative
coverage plans, and therapy programs. Caring Voice Coalition serves
patients throughout the State of Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam R. Rivera, Esq.
          John William Cleary , Jr., Esq.
          Michael O. Mena, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 South Le Jeune Road, 10th Flr.
          Coral Gables, FL 33434
          Telephone: (305) 720-5250
          E-mail: mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
          Deborah L. Stein, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com
                  DStein@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joanna McDonough, Esq.
          Martin F. Murphy, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Seaport World Trade Center West
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 832-3050

CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the putative class action suit entitled,
Donald Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc. et al., is still pending.

On August 9, 2019, Donald Hook filed a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, Donald Hook, et al., v. Casa Systems, Inc. et
al., Index No. 654548/2019, against the same defendants named in
the Shen and Baig matters.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in and/or traceable to the company's
initial public offering (IPO) and generally alleges that (i) each
of the defendants violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act because documents related to the company's IPO
including the company's registration statement and prospectus were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and
Summit Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and
in violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains substantially similar allegations as the initial
complaint, described above, and asserts claims for violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On January 21, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remains pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., is still pending.

On August 13, 2019, Panther Partners, Inc. filed a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County, Panther Partners, Inc., et al., v.
Jerry Guo et al., Index No 654585/2019, against the company,
certain of its current and former executive officers and directors,
and the underwriters from the company's April 30, 2018 follow-on
offering of common stock, refered to as "Follow-on Offering."

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in its Follow-on Offering and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham
Pucheril, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of
the defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
because documents related to the company's Follow-on Offering,
including its registration statement and prospectus, were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted
as controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains substantially similar allegations and asserts the same
claims as the initial complaint, described above.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.


On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Joined Shen & Baig Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that plaintiffs in the
consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al. suit,
filed notice of appeal.

On May 29, 2019, John Shen filed a putative shareholder class
action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et al., Civil Action No.
1977CV00787, against the company; certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors; Summit Partners, the company's
largest investor; and the underwriters from the company's December
15, 2017, initial public offering, or IPO.

On July 3, 2019, Mirza R. Baig filed a similar putative shareholder
class action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, Mirza R. Baig v. Casa Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
1977CV00961, against the same defendants.

Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion filed on July 26, 2019, and accepted
September 3, 2019, the two matters were consolidated and
transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Suffolk County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et
al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03203-BLS2 and Mirza R. Baig v. Casa
Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03204-BLS2.

The complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO.

The complaints generally alleged that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, because documents
related to the IPO, including the company's registration statement
and prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

On November 12, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder class
action complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which
contained substantially similar allegations and asserted the same
claims as the two initial complaints, described above.

Plaintiffs sought, among other things compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.


On January 14, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice. On January 12, 2021, the court
granted the motions to dismiss.  

On February 22, 2021, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal.

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the securities class action suit against Bats Global Markets, Inc.
now known as CBOE Bats, LLC and Direct Edge Holdings LLC.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange
("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and
were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the
complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants
committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated
with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high
frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on August
26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the complaint in
full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order
requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower
Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have
immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.


On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing. The Exchange Defendants filed
their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018,
Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15, 2018 and the Exchange
Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17,
2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July
16, 2019.

Exchange Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019.

The discovery period in the matter commenced and is scheduled to
continue through at least the first half of 2021. Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Dismissal of VIX-Related Class Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties are
currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit on the appeal in
the class action suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index
methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a
putative class action alleging various claims against the Company
and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim.

Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an
unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019.

The Company filed its reply on January 28, 2019. On May 29, 2019,
the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' entire
complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019. On
August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their response
on October 8, 2019.

On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal. On May
19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking to appeal the April 21,
2020 order granting the entry of partial final judgment and both
orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss entered on May 29,
2019 and January 27, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief
with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc.,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association
filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Bad
Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020,
plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit.

Oral arguments were held remotely on November 30, 2020 and the
parties are currently awaiting a decision by the 7th Circuit.

The Company currently believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation.

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

CEMIG: Class Suits Against Subsidiary Underway
----------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the class action suits against CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A.
(Cemig GT), is ongoing.

The Public Attorneys of Minas Gerais State, together with an
association and individuals, have brought class actions requiring
Cemig GT to invest, since 1997, at least 0.5% of the annual gross
operating revenue of the Emborcacao, Pissarrao, Funil, Volta
Grande, Poquim, Parauna, Miranda, Nova Ponte, Rio de Pedras and
Peti plants in environmental protection and preservation of the
water tables of the counties where these power plants are located,
and proportional indemnity for allegedly irrecoverable
environmental damage caused, arising from omission to comply with
Minas Gerais State Law 12,503/1997.

In May 2020, the Federal Supreme Court declared unconstitutional
the rule from the state that requires the investment of a portion
of the revenue from the distribution agent's in the protection and
preservation of water resources, since it characterizes undue State
intervention in the concession contract for the exploitation of the
energy use of watercourse, which is competence of the Union.

As a result, the Company reassessed the probability of loss to
remote, in the amount of R$186 on December 31, 2020 (R$165 at
December 31, 2019).

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CEMIG: Class Suits Over Electricity Supply Contracts Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the company and Cemig D continue to defend several class action
suits related to the nullity of the clause in the Electricity
Supply Contracts.

Cemig and Cemig D are defendants in several public civil claims
(class actions) requesting nullity of the clause in the Electricity
Supply Contracts for public illumination signed between the Company
and the various municipalities of its concession area, and
restitution by the Company of the difference representing the
amounts charged in the last 20 years, in the event that the courts
recognize that these amounts were unduly charged.

The actions are grounded on a supposed error by Cemig in the
estimation of the period of time that was used in calculation of
the consumption of energy for public illumination, funded by the
Public Lighting Contribution (Contribuicao para Iluminacao Publica,
or CIP).

The Company believes it has arguments of merit for defense in these
claims, since the charge at present made is grounded on Aneel
Normative Resolution 456/2000. As a result, it has not constituted
a provision for this action, the amount of which is estimated at
R$1,072 (R$959 at December 31, 2019).

The Company has assessed the probability of loss in this action as
'possible', due to the Customer Defense Code (Codigo de Defesa do
Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the matter is
governed by the specific regulation of the electricity sector, and
because Cemig complied with Aneel Resolutions 414 and 456, which
deal with the subject.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.

CEMIG: Suit Over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the class action suit against CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A.
(Cemig GT) related to the formation of a Permanent Preservation
Area (APP) around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric
plant remains pending.

The Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class
actions requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area
around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant,
suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses, and
recovery of alleged environmental damage.

Based on the opinion of its legal advisers in relation to the
changes that have been made in the new Forest Code and in the case
law on this subject, Cemig GT has classified the chance of loss in
this dispute as 'possible.'

The estimated value of the contingency is R$106 (R$95 at December
31, 2019).

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CEMIG: Unit's Appeal in Suit Over Tariff Increases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the appeal in the class action suit filed against CEMIG
Distribuicao S.A. (CEMIG D) and Agencia Nacional de Energia
Eletrica (ANEEL), is still pending.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
CEMIG D and ANEEL, to avoid exclusion of customers from
classification in the Low-income Residential Tariff Sub-category,
and also requesting an order for CEMIG D to pay 200% of the amount
allegedly paid in excess by customers in that sub-category.

Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the Federal Public
Attorneys, and CEMIG D and ANEEL have filed an appeal with TRF.

A decision by the Court in this case has been pending since March
2008.

As of December 31, 2020 the amount involved in this case was
approximately R$357 million The chance of loss has been classified
as 'possible' due to the existence of other judgments, both in the
judiciary and in the administrative sphere, that are in favor of
the argument put forward by CEMIG D.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - CEMIG is a Brazilian power
company headquartered in Belo Horizonte capital of the state of
Minas Gerais. The company is one of the largest power generators
and distributors in Brazil being responsible for 12% of the
national distribution.


CENTRAL YETEV: Juarez Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CORONA JUAREZ, WENDY AGUILAR, CARLOS GARCIA BELLO, EULISES
MIRANDA CASTREJON, BERTIN DURAN, JUAN LOPEZ GOMEZ, DARIO MARTINEZ,
JERONIMO JIMENEZ DE LA CRUZ, MARIA CARMEN PASTOR JIMENEZ, MARCELO
JUAREZ JUAREZ, ERICK PEREZ, PLACIDO GONZALEZ NAVA, VENANCIO
GONAZALEZ, DAVID RUIZ, HONORIO SANCHEZ DE LOS SANTOS, LUDIN
MORALES, JAVIER VELAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL YETEV LEV D'SATMAR MEAT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02633 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated kitchen
and food delivery workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as kitchen and food
delivery workers in New York.

Central Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meat, Inc. is an owner and operator of
meat markets in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
         277 Broadway, Suite 206
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 766-9870
         E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com

                 - and –

         Retu R. Singla, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RETU SINGLA, P.C.
         11 Broadway, Suite 615
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 884-9104
         E-mail: rsingla@workingpeopleslaw.com

CGP ENTERPRISES: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Martinez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIANO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CGP ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a VILLAGE TAVERNA,
PETER KAROUNOS, GEORGE KAROUNOS, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04333 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay appropriate
minimum wage and spread-of-hours compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 10 hours in a work shift.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt food delivery worker, busboy
and porter at the Defendants' restaurant from October 2017 through
March 30, 2021.

CGP Enterprises, Inc. is an owner and operator of a Greek
restaurant under the name Village Taverna located at 81 University
Place, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Justin Cilenti, Esq.
         Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
         CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
         10 Grand Central
         155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 209-3933
         Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
         E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Ortega Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONALD ORTEGA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., and DOES 1- 50, inclusive,
Case No. 34-02021-00296245, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on May 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00845-TLN-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
constitutionality of California statutes.

Chick-Fil-A, Inc. is an American fast food restaurant chain
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
         KALIEL GOLD PLLC
         1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Churchill Capital Corp IV
(NYSE: CCIV). Investors who purchased CCIV stock or other
securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by
visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill to submit their
information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.

The complaint alleges that on February 22, 2021, a merger agreement
was announced between Churchill, a special purpose acquisition
company and Lucid, an American automotive company specializing in
electric cars. The transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37. It is alleged
that Lucid announced the production of its debut car would be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. It is also alleged that
Lucid was projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021,
rather than the 6,000 it had been touting before the merger
announcement.

The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors do not
need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in
managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action,
they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been
certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not
represented by an attorney.

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

CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111 [GN]


CIC SERVICES: Prabhu Sues Over Unlawful Acts and Omissions
----------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Prabhu and SRM Group, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CIC SERVICES, LLC, SEAN G. KING,
THOMAS N. KING, BRYAN RIDGWAY, AND SHAWN HOLLAND, Case No.
2021CV349022 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 3, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants' for their unlawful acts and omissions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants promoted and sold a tax
scam as described by the IRS. Upon discovering that they had
unwittingly participated in the tax scam, the Plaintiffs exited the
scheme immediately and amended their affected tax returns, paying
approximately $2 million in back taxes. They also incurred expenses
for experts, accountants, and attorneys associated with exiting the
scheme and amending their returns. At the request of the Internal
Revenue Service, the Plaintiffs assisted in its investigation of
Defendants and their conduct. Te Plaintiffs disclosed all relevant
information to the IRS. Plaintiffs are thus "whistleblowers."

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have sought to chill
Plaintiffs' whistleblower activities via an aggressive
counter-litigation strategy, including attempted enforcement of
certain provisions of certain contracts. The contracts provisions
relied upon by the Defendants have been misconstrued by the
Defendants. In the alternative, the contract provisions relied upon
by Defendants are void, voidable, illegal, and/or against public
policy.

The SRM Group, Inc. is a small business providing dormitory
management services to the United States government, ultimately
owned by Suresh Prabhu.

CIC is a promoter of pure micro-captive insurance companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter F. Schoenthaler, Esq.
          Ann R. Emery, Esq.
          SCHOENTHALER LAW GROUP
          3200 Windy Hill Road, SE, Suite 1600E
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 592-5397
          Telecopier: (855) 283-8983

               - and -

          J. Elizabeth Graddy, Esq.
          GRADDY LAW LLC
          3355 Lenox Road—Suite 750
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 863-8789
          Email: jegraddy@graddylegal.com


CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Pearl Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURIE PEARL, individually
and on behalf of all persons situated, v. CLEARLINK PARTNERS, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10529-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting conditional certification and issuance
of notice to the following collective:

   "All individuals who worked for Clearlink providing utilization
   review services ("Utilization Review Employees" or "UREs") in
   the United States between [insert date three years prior to the

   date that the Court issues an Order granting Conditional
   Certification] and the present, who were not paid overtime."

The Plaintiff filed this case on March 17, 2020, seeking overtime
compensation on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
consultants.

Pearl worked for Clearlink providing utilization review services.
Pearl was assigned by Clearlink to perform work for one of
Clearlink's clients. Pearl contends that she worked remotely and
regularly worked up to 10-13 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a
total of 50 to 60 hours each week. These long hours were necessary
to meet the daily case review quota that Clearlink imposed on its
UREs. However, Clearlink failed to pay her for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and failed to pay her an overtime premium
for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  ssb@llrlaw.com
                  kconnon@llrlaw.com
                  adoherty@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net

CLIENT SERVICES: Seeks Time Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HIESEOK RHEE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-12253-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), the Defendant will
move the Court on June 7, 2021 to enter an order granting an
extension of time to respond to Plaintiff Hieseok Rhee's motion for
class certification until the court decides the outstanding
discovery disputes that impact CSI's opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

Client Services also known as CSI is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eS99IC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean M. O'Brien, Esq.
          LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP
          50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 853-5100
          Facsimile: (716) 853-5199
          E-mail: sobrien@lippes.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Greifman FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHLOMO GREIFMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-1781 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Cathy Seibel
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") dispute arises out
of a debt collection letter that Defendant Client Services, Inc.
("CSI") sent to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2019.  The Defendant sent
the Plaintiff the Letter because the Plaintiff allegedly owes a
"debt" as defined by the FDCPA that is in default.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint "individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated" on Feb. 28, 2020, alleging
that the Defendant's Letter violated the Plaintiff's rights under
the FDCPA.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges violations of
Sections 1692e and 1692g of Title 15 of the United States Code.

The Defendant filed an Answer on May 5, denying any such violation.
On June 4, it requested "leave to file a motion for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c),"which the Court
granted at a pre-motion conference held on June 22.  At that
conference, the Court also granted the  Plaintiff leave to amend in
advance of the motion.  The Plaintiff did not amend.  The instant
motion followed.

Discussion

A. Standing

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated these provisions
by overshadowing the Plaintiff's validation rights with legal
threats and failing to adequately convey how the Plaintiff could
dispute the alleged debt.

Accepting these allegations as true, Judge Seibel opines that the
Defendant's conduct posed a risk of hindering the exercise of the
Plaintiff's right to seek validation of or dispute the alleged
debt.  Under the law of the Circuit, this constitutes a "risk of
real harm" to Plaintiff in particular, sufficient to establish an
injury in fact.  While the Defendant cites contrary authority in
other circuits, the Court is bound by Second Circuit precedent.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has established Article III standing to
bring the suit.

B. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's Letter overshadows and is
inconsistent with the Plaintiff's rights under Sections 1692g and
1692e of the FDCPA, in two separate counts.

1. Section 1692g(a)

Section 1692g(a) mandates that in its initial communication with a
consumer (or within five days of it), a debt collector must send
the consumer a written notice containing, among other things, a
statement that the consumer has 30 days to notify the debt
collector in writing that the consumer disputes the debt, whereupon
the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt and mail it
to the consumer.  This language, "commonly referred to as a
'validation notice,' gives the consumer the information necessary
to challenge the debt allegedly owed before making payment.  A
notice overshadows or contradicts the validation notice if it would
make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights.

Judge Seibel holds that the least sophisticated consumer inquiry
"is to be conducted with a recognition that confusion can occur in
a myriad of ways, such as when a letter visually buries the
required validation notice, contains logical inconsistencies, fails
to explain an apparent inconsistency, or presents some combination
of these (or similar) vices."  Because the least sophisticated
consumer standard is objective, the determination of how the least
sophisticated consumer would view language in a defendant's
collection letter is a question of law that the Court may resolve
on a motion to dismiss" or a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

2. Section 1692e

Section 1692e of the FDCPA contains 16 subsections that "provide a
nonexhaustive list of practices that fall within the statute's
ban," including Section 1692e(5), which prohibits "the threat to
take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not
intended to be taken," "a catch-all provision that bars [t]he use
of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer."  A validation notice is deceptive, and thus violates
section 1692e(10), 'when it can be reasonably read to have two or
more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.'"  As with
Section 1692g, alleged violations of Section 1692e(5) and (10) are
evaluated under the least sophisticated consumer standard.  Indeed,
"the standard for determining a violation of Section 1692e(10) is
essentially the same as that for Section 1692g."

3. Immediate or Imminent Threat

In his first claim, the Plaintiff argues that the Letter is
"reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least
sophisticated consumer" in violation of Section 1692e.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the least sophisticated
consumer could read the Letter as a threat of immediate or imminent
legal action "even if she exercises her validation rights," and
that such threat overshadows and is inconsistent with the
Plaintiff's validation rights in violation of Section 1692g.

Considering these facts, Judge Seibel agrees with Judge Briccetti
that transitional language is not required.  There is no misleading
impression that needs to be corrected with transitional language.
While the Plaintiff argues that Rosenberg "did not answer the
question of where the proverbial line must be drawn," it did not
have to, because the letter before it did not violate the FDCPA.
Likewise, the Judge finds that the Letter did not threaten
immediate or imminent legal action against the Plaintiff in
violation of Sections 1692e or 1692g, or otherwise overshadow or
dilute the validation notice.

4. Multiple Addresses

In his second claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the Letter fails to
instruct the least sophisticated consumer as to which address
disputes must be sent and therefore overshadows and is inconsistent
with his rights under Sections 1692e and 1692g.  The Defendant
argues that the Letter does not violate the FDCPA because it "makes
it clear to the least sophisticated consumer that all
correspondences including written disputes should be directed to
CSI's office address."

In arguing that the inclusion of multiple addresses was misleading
and confusing, Judge Seibel finds that the Plaintiff relies on
Judge Pollak's discussion in Pinyuk v. CBE Group, Inc., No.
17-CV-5753, 2019 WL 1900985 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2019).  There are,
however, key differences between the case and Pinyuk.  For one, the
letter in Pinyuk contained three addresses for the debt collector,
including two different P.O. Box addresses. In contrast, the letter
in the case contains two addresses for CSI and only one is a P.O.
Box address.  Furthermore, the letter in Pinyuk did not direct the
consumer to any particular address.  In another case where the
court found the inclusion of multiple addresses misleading or
confusing, the letter directed the consumer to multiple addresses
(one of which was the incorrect address).  In the case, the
Plaintiff is only directed to one address, which is the correct
address to which to send disputes.  For these reasons, Judge Seibel
does not find that the letter misleads or confuses the least
sophisticated consumer as to where disputes must be sent, and it
therefore does not violate Section 1692e or Section 1692g.

C. Leave to Amend

Judge Seibel holds that the Plaintiff has already had a chance to
amend his complaint after having the benefit of a pre-motion letter
from Defendant outlining the proposed grounds for dismissal, and
the discussion at the June 22, 2020 pre-motion conference.  In
general, a plaintiff's failure to fix deficiencies in the previous
pleading, after being provided notice of them, is alone sufficient
ground to deny leave to amend.  Further, the Plaintiff has not
requested leave to amend or suggested that he is in possession of
facts that would cure the deficiencies identified in the Opinion.
Accordingly, the Judge declines to grant leave to amend sua
sponte.

Conclusion

For her foregoing reasons, Judge Seibel granted the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion and close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/28fexhnk from Leagle.com.

Jonathan M. Cader -- jcader@sbglawny.com -- Craig B. Sanders --
csanders@barshaysanders.com -- David M. Barshay --
info@barshaysanders.com -- Barshay Sanders PLLC, in Garden City,
New York, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Brendan H. Little -- BLITTLE@LIPPES.COM -- Lippes Mathias Wexler
Friedman LLP, in Buffalo, New York, Counsel for Defendant.


CLOVER HEALTH: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) Lifshitz Law Firm,
P.C. announces an investigation into CLOV in connection with (a)
its receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand from the Department of
Justice; (b) whether CLOV adequately disclosed that its sales are
driven by a major related party deal; (c) whether CLOV's
subsidiary, SEEK Insurance, adequately disclosed its relationship
with CLOV; and (d) whether CLOV's software was in fact
rudimentary.

If you are a CLOV investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.  The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.,
1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780.  Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]


CONUMSERXPRESS LLC: Schwartzenberger Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Schwartzenberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ConsumerXpress LLC, d/b/a CAC Services, Case
No. 1:21-at-00545 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2021), is brought to seek
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, recoverable costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to
Portal Act, the California Labor Code and relevant Minimum Wage
Order, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order; and the
California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code for the Defendant's violations of California state
law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff
and similarly situated field service agents as independent
contractors in violation of California and Federal law. As a result
of this misclassification, Defendant has unlawfully failed to pay
the Plaintiff and similarly situated field service agents all due
and owing minimum wages, in part, because it failed to reimburse
necessary business expenses incurred for the Defendant's benefit
(including, but not limited to, costs of vehicle maintenance, fuel,
insurance, cellular phone and data expenses, and other business
costs) in violation of federal and California state law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field service agent
performing "field chase," inspection, document signing/courier and
other duties at various residential and commercial locations in and
around Tulare County, California and Kern County, California.

The Defendant is a field services management company, which
provides document signing services, vehicle inspection services,
field contact services, and site inspection services primarily in
connection with due diligence for its customers in the financial
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          Email: rprieto@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          Email: marbuckle@eeoc.net


CORECIVIC INC: Breached Terms of Lease Agreement, Portview Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portview Properties, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. UNN-L-001532-21 (N.J. Super.
Ct., Union Cty., May 3, 2021), is seeking to stop the Defendant's
ongoing breach of the express terms of its lease agreement with the
Plaintiff which specifically require the Defendant to observe and
comply with the terms of the contract for the provision of
detention services between the Defendant and United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") dated July 1, 2005 (the
"ICE Contract"), as well as all applicable federal and state
statutes, rules, regulations and decrees, in its operation and
management of a private ICE detention facility within a
building/warehouse located in Elizabeth, New Jersey which the
Defendant has controlled pursuant to a lease agreement with the
Plaintiff since December 1993.

According to the complaint, since the outbreak of COVID-19 in March
2020, as confirmed by site visits by representatives of Plaintiff,
Defendant has continued to detain individuals in confined areas
within the Elizabeth Detention Center ("EDC") in direct
contravention of the COVID-19 social distancing and safety
guidelines and requirements for detention centers promulgated by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and ICE.
Both former and current detainees housed at the EDC have complained
of Defendant's total failure to implement the basic safety, health
care, sanitation and hygiene measures called for by these
guidelines and requirements. As a result of Defendant's failure to
comply with these guidelines and requirements, or take significant
steps to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 within the facility, as of
April 29, 2021, 51 detainees have tested positive for COVID-19
while in Defendant's custody at the EDC.

The Defendant continues to operate the EDC without regard to CDC
and ICE COVID-19 safety guidelines and requirements. The
Defendant's failure to implement the required measures represents
not only a threat to the health, safety, and well-being of those
individuals detained within the EDC, but also, a breach of the ICE
Contract and, therefore, its lease agreement with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Portview Properties, LLC is a Limited Liability
Company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

CoreCivic, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates
private correctional and detention facilities throughout the United
States which it uses to provide correctional and detention services
to federal, state and local government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC
          One Boland Drive
          West Orange, NJ 07052
          Phone: (973) 325-1500


CRAWFISH PROCESSING: Quinonez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Edith Torres Quinonez, and Martha Icela Flores Gaxiola, and
others similarly situated v. CRAWFISH PROCESSING, LLC and CHARLES
BERNARD, Case No. 1:21-cv-01281 (W.D. La., May 13, 2021), is
brought to secure minimum wage and overtime wages and vindicate
rights afforded them by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Louisiana Wage
Payment Law and the law of contracts.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were employed for long
hours, often starting their day before dawn and working upwards of
10 or 11 hours on many days. The Plaintiffs were employed for long
hours, often starting their day before dawn and working upwards of
10 or 11 hours on many days. The Plaintiffs and their co-workers
were never paid overtime. The Defendants willfully engaged in a
scheme or policy of failing to pay their employees, including the
Plaintiffs, their minimum and overtime wages as required by the
FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are two migrant agricultural workers employed by the
Defendants.

Crawfish Processing, LLC is a closely held Louisiana corporation
that operates and maintains its principal address in Marksville,
Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caitlin Berberich, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
          A Project of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc.
          311 Plus Park Blvd., Ste. 135
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Phone: (615) 538-0725
          Facsimile: (615) 366-3349
          Email: cberberich@trla.org

               - and -

          David Huang, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
          A Project of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc.
          311 Plus Park Blvd., Ste. 135
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Phone: (615) 538-0725
          Facsimile: (615) 366-3349
          Email: dhuang@trla.org

               - and -

          Mary Yanik, Esq.
          TULANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CLINIC
          6329 Freret St., Suite 130
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Phone: (504) 865-5153
          Facsimile: (504) 862-8753
          Email: myanik@tulane.edu


CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Gates Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANET GATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. CV 21 947438 (Ohio, Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga
Cty., May 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence and breach of contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and protect
the personal and financial information of the Plaintiff and Class
members following a data breach on its system on February 10, 2021
by a hacker group using DoppelPaymer ransomware. In addition, the
breach knocked the Defendant's system offline for eight days, which
delayed or placed many transactions of constituents in public
housing in jeopardy. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages and
will now have to expend additional time and energy reviewing
alerts, verifying their identity with potential creditors, and
monitoring their credit reports.

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority is a political subdivision
of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Marc E. Dann, Esq.
         Brian D. Flick, Esq.
         Michael Smith, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         P.O. Box 6031040
         Cleveland, OH 44103
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

                 - and –

         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com

CVI SGP: Cotte FDCPA Class Suit Removed to District of Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AUGOSTO COTTE and MERCEDES HIDALGO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CVI SGP ACQUISITION
TRUST and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2210901929, was removed from the
Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County, State of Utah,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on May 10,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00299-JNP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

CVI SGP Acquisition Trust is a statutory trust with its principal
location in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Julianne P. Blanch, Esq.
         PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
         201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Telephone: (801) 532-1234
         Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
         E-mail: JBlanch@pasonsbehle.com

                - and –

         Debra L. Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
         Christopher S. Comstock, Esq.
         MAYER BROWN LLP
         71 South Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606-4637
         Telephone: (312) 782-0600
         Facsimile: (312) 701-7111
         E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com
                 ccomstock@mayerbrown.com

DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class for Teamsters Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nichols v. Denver Health
and Hospital Authority, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818 (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
certify class for count III, a Teamsters "Pattern-or-Practice"
claim.

The suit is brought over alleged civil rights violations related to
employment.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico.

The Denver Health and Hospital Authority is an integrated health
care system that consisting of a main hospital, 911 response and
EMS, poison and toxicology, family health centers, school-based
clinics, detoxification services, correctional care, and medical
response to terrorism, mass casualties and epidemics.[CC]




DENVER HEALTH: Nichols Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL NICHOLS, on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated employees, v. DENVER HEALTH
AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02818-DDD-KLM (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of:

   "current and former African American employees of Defendant
   Denver Health and Hospital Authority (DHHA) from January 2018 to

   present similarly aggrieved by Count III, which alleges an
   unlawful "pattern-or-practice" of racial discrimination under
   section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5."

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pleads both individual
violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C. section 12112 (ADA), as well as a "pattern or
practice" claim in Count III. The Plaintiff deliberately postured
Count III as a Teamsters pattern-or-practice claim so that other
current or former African American employees necessarily aggrieved
by DHHA's subjective and discriminatory ABP decision-making
practices could benefit from her efforts, the evidence she has
amassed here, and the Teamsters presumption.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Merrily S. Archer, Esq.
          EEO LEGAL SOLUTIONS LLC
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800-South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 248-3769
          Facsimile: (303) 915-5486
          E-mail: archerm@eeolegalsolutions.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alice Conway Powers, Esq.
          Jon Olafson, Esq.
          Shawna Ruetz, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS PC
          1700 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4000
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 292-2028
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7767
          E-mail: Alice.powers@lewisbrisbois.com
          www.lewisbrisbois.com

DOUROS MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuvany Salgado Ramirez and Rafael Bacuilima Narvaez, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOUROS MANAGEMENT
CORP., DUROS TAXI INC., and JOHN GIOVANIS, Jointly and Severally,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02694 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021), is brought to
recover the unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime premium pay
owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law; also brought for unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to provide proper wage
statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations.

The Plaintiffs were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked
over 40 in a given workweek. In addition, for several years of the
relevant time period, the Plaintiffs were not paid the legally
required minimum wage for all hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are a former autobody mechanic and repairman at the
Defendants' auto body shop located in Astoria, Queens, New York.

Douros, formerly named "Halkidiki Auto Center", is 21st a vehicle
repair shop and taxi company that operates from Queens, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DRAFTKINGS INC: Fails to Honor Winning Wagers, Cristman Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CRISTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-11092-SDD-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 12, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
systemic practice of refusing to pay winning wagers to customers
who are contractually entitled to them. DraftKings allegedly failed
to honor the winning wagers its customers paid for by incorrectly
marking the wagers as losses and, as a result, prevented their
customers from receiving the payout that they were entitled to.

DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company, with its headquarters located at 222 Berkeley Street, 5th
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Henry M. Scharg, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF HENRY M. SCHARG
         30445 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 225
         Farmington Hills, MI 48334
         Telephone: (248) 596-1111
         Facsimile: (248) 671-0335
         E-mail: hmsattyatlaw@aol.com

                - and –

         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
         Michael Ovca, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                 ascharg@edelson.com
                 movca@edelson.com

DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Entry of Appearance for Ventures Trust Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SEYED MARVASTIAN On behalf of
himself individually and similarly situated persons, v.
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Case No. N21M-04-007 (Del. Super,  April 6,
2021), the Attorneys for Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R ask the Court
for an order granting entry of their appearance as counsel of
record for non-party Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R.

Ventures Trust is represented by:

          William B. Larson Jr., Esq.
          Amaryah K. Bocchino, Esq.
          Ryan W. Browning, Esq.
          William B. Larson, Jr., Esq.
          MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
          1007 North Orange Street, Suite 711
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Telephone: (302) 657-2100

DYNAMO AVIATION: Faces Calderon Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSMIN CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DYNAMO AVIATION, INC.; ADP TOTALSOURCE,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV17630 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and
rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
waiting time penalties, failure to permit inspection of personnel
and payroll records, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked as a store clerk at the Defendants' North
Hills, California location from May 25, 2014 until July 30, 2020.

Dynamo Aviation, Inc. is an aerospace company in Los Angeles,
California.

ADP TotalSource, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based human capital
management (HCM) solutions, headquartered in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jace H. Kim, Esq.
         Carlos Andres Perez, Esq.
         Javier Ramirez, Esq.
         THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM, LLP
         3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-4011
         Facsimile: (213) 201-8212
         E-mail: Jace.Kim@DominguezFirm.com
                 Carlos.Perez@DominguezFirm.com
                 Javier.Ramirez@DominguezFirm.com

EAST SIDE: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Mastache Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMINA MASTACHE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST SIDE SERVICES LLC, LORENA
MUNOZ, and FRANCISCO SALAZAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02511
(N.D. Ill., May 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff worked in maintenance and cleaning for the Defendants
from November 2020 to March 2021.

East Side Services LLC is a building maintenance services provider
based in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         James M. Dore, Esq.
         Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
         DORE LAW OFFICES LLC
         134 N. LaSalle, Suite 1208
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 726-8401
         E-mail: james@dorelawoffices.com
                 jmdore70@sbcglobal.net
                 danschlade@gmail.com

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Palm Tran Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Palm Tran,
Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan.

On or about April 27, 2021, Emergent BioSolutions received a
complaint from Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local
1577 Pension Plan involving a federal securities class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking to
pursue remedies against the Company and certain members of Company
management under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are
false and intend to defend the matter vigorously.

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats.

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS) investors
with $100k or more losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: July 6, 2020 - Mar. 31, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021

Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ebs

Contact an Attorney Now:EBS@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

Emergent BioSolutions (NYSE:EBS) Securities Fraud Class Action:

Throughout the class period, Defendants touted Emergent's deals
with J&J and AstraZeneca to produce their vaccine candidates and
separate production contract with the U.S. government. Defendants
also emphasized its "proven manufacturing capabilities in place" at
its Baltimore, Maryland facility.

In truth, the company failed to disclose a multitude of issues at
its Baltimore facility that would detrimentally affect its ability
to manufacture the vaccines.

On Mar. 31, 2021, media reports revealed the company mixed up
ingredients for J&J's and AstraZeneca's vaccines, contaminating up
to 15 million J&J vaccine doses.

This news caused Emergent shares to decline. Notably, shortly
before this disclosure, Emergent's CEO sold $10 million of his
shares.

On Apr. 6, 2021, the New York Times reported that "[p]reviously
undisclosed internal documents and interviews with current and
former federal officials and former company employees depict a
factory operation that was ill-equipped to take on such a mammoth
manufacturing task." The NYT reported that audits and
investigations - including ones conducted by J&J, AstraZeneca, two
federal agencies and Emergent - found that Emergent had not
followed basic industry standards at its Baltimore facility.
AstraZenica's audit highlighted risks of viral cross-contamination.
The NYT further reported that beginning in Oct. 2020, Emergent
discarded five lots of the AstraZenica vaccine and one lot of the
J&J vaccine because of contamination or spoliation.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Emergent lied about
its vaccine production capabilities," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are an Emergent investor and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Emergent should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email EBS@hbsslaw.com.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Reply Brief for Class Status Bid Due June 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RE ENVISION HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. . 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery S. Frensley entered an order that
the Plaintiffs must file any reply brief supporting their Motion
for Class Certification on or before June 4, 2021.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to
modify the deadline for filing a reply brief to support their
Motion for Class Certification.

In these consolidated securities fraud cases, the Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant Envision engaged in misrepresentations and omissions
related to its out-of-network billing practices. The Defendants
deny the allegations and moved to dismiss the Complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w8NvFQ at no extra charge.[CC]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Meeks Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elettra Meeks, Joseph
Delacruz, Stephanie Laguna, Amber Leonard, Becky Witt, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC, Consumer Adjustment
Company, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-03266-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 3,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601-1533
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: craig@clalegal.com


FARMER BROS: Monegro Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FARMER BROS. CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04197 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.chinamist.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) lack of a label element or
title attribute for each field, (3) redundant links, and (4) host
of broken links.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Farmer Bros. Co. is a tea and herbal blends company doing business
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

FIBROGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
docketed under 21-cv-03212, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired FibroGen securities and/or sold put options from
November 8, 2019, through and including April 6, 2021 (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
15 U.S.C. Sec 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (the "Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchased FibroGen securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 11, 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.

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 activity that acts by
stimulating the body's natural pathway for red cell production. In
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").

Anemia can be a serious medical condition in which patients have
insufficient red blood cells and low levels of hemoglobin, a
protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen to cells throughout
the body. Anemia in CKD is associated with increased risk of
hospitalization, cardiovascular complications, and death, also
frequently causing significant fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and
reduced quality of life. Severe anemia is common in patients with
CKD, cancer, myelodysplastic syndromes, inflammatory diseases, and
other serious illnesses.

Anemia is particularly prevalent in patients with CKD. The
prevalence of CKD in the adult population is estimated at 10-12%
globally and is generally a progressive disease characterized by
gradual loss of kidney function that may eventually lead to kidney
failure, or end stage renal disease, requiring dialysis or kidney
transplant to survive. Blood transfusion is used for treating
life-threatening severe anemia. However, blood transfusions reduce
the patient's opportunity for kidney transplant, and increase the
risk of infections and the risk of complications such as heart
failure and allergic reactions.

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

On April 6, 2021, FibroGen issued a press release "provid[ing]
clarification of certain prior disclosures of U.S. primary
cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3
program". The Company's Chief Executive Officer stated that "[a]s
members of senior management were preparing for the upcoming FDA
Advisory Committee meeting, we became aware that the primary
cardiovascular safety analyses included post-hoc changes to the
stratification factors" and "promptly decided to clarify this issue
with the FDA and communicate with the scientific and investment
communities."

Also on April 6, 2021, STAT+ published an article entitled
"Fibrogen admits false heart-safety data for experimental anemia
pill shared with FDA, investors." The article stated, among other
things, that "Fibrogen acknowledged that the company has been
touting false heart-safety data for its experimental anemia pill
for at least two years - a shocking revelation that raises even
more questions about the drug's approvability," that "[w]hen those
changes were removed and roxadustat's heart-safety data were
analyzed as pre-specified in the analysis plan, the results are
less robust," and that "[a]cross three studies involving dialysis
patients, Fibrogen said it can no longer conclude that roxadustat
reduces the risk of cardiovascular events or hospitalization
compared to a currently approved anemia injection used as a
control."

Following these disclosures, the Company's share price fell $14.90,
or 43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on heavy
volume. FibroGen's shares continued to fall on April 8, 2021, to
close at $18.81 per share, a decline of $0.93 per share, or 4.7%,
on heavy volume.

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]


FIRST CREDIT: Dabbah Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIRST CREDIT
SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as Eliyahu Dabbah, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST CREDIT
SERVICES, INC. doing business as: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-10576-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., May 3, 2021).

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

First Credit Services -- https://www.firstcreditonline.com/ -- is a
BPO company that specializes in accounts receivables management and
customer service outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FLORIDA: G.H. ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.H., a minor, by and
through his parent and legal guardian, GREGORY HENRY; R.L., a
minor, by and through her parent and legal guardian, ANGEL CARTER;
B.W., a minor, by and through her parent and legal guardian, LEROI
LUZUNARIS; on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated, v. JOSEFINA TAMAYO, in her official capacity as Acting
Secretary of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice; and the
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, an agency of the State of
Florida, Case No. 4:19-cv-00431-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting class certification;

   2. certifying the proposed class and subclasses under Rule
23(b)
      (2):

      -- class

         "all children who are, or will be, in custody in a DJJ-
         operated secure detention center and subject to solitary
         confinement; and


      -- subclass

         "all qualified children with disabilities as that term is

         defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12102 and 29 U.S.C. section
         705(9)(B), who are, or will be, in custody in a DJJ-
         operated secure detention center and subject to solitary
         confinement;" and

   3. appointing the undersigned as class counsel under Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(g).

This case arises from the systemic unconstitutional and
discriminatory statewide policy and practice of solitary
confinement used by the Defendants in all 21 state-operated secure
detention centers. The Defendants' statewide policy and practice is
to isolate children in solitary confinement, often the same child
repeatedly, for hours or days at a time, with no time limit in
locked cells alone, without meaningful social interaction,
environmental stimulation, outdoor recreation, educational
instruction, access to personal property, or adequate sanitation.
Allegedly, the Defendants' policy and practice causes Plaintiffs,
G.H. and children a year, 1 to be isolated in R.L. (Plaintiffs),
and approximately solitary confinement in conditions which pose a
substantial risk of serious harm to their health and safety because
of their continuing social, psychological, and physiological
development.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have been, and continue
to be, deliberately indifferent to this risk to children entrusted
to their care. The Defendants' actions violate the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The
Defendant DJJ also discriminates against children with disabilities
through this same policy and practice by failing to have a system
to provide reasonable accommodations for all children subject to
confinement in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA).

This case is not about what happened to an individual child in
solitary confinement. Plaintiffs seek only declaratory and
injunctive relief to remedy Defendants' statewide solitary
confinement policy and practice which results in a systemic risk of
harm and disability discrimination for them, the class, and
subclass. The systemic legal and factual issues here warrant class
certification.

Defendants Tamayo and DJJ (Defendants) control, operate, and
oversee a secure detention system of facilities. These facilities
are physically restrictive and children, generally ranging in age
from eight to twenty-one, are detained pending adjudication,
disposition, placement, or pursuant to court order.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eJxmAO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea Costello, Esq.
          Christopher M. Jones, Esq.
          Rachel Ortiz, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES
          122 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 100
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 801-0332 (direct)
          E-mail: andrea@floridalegal.org
                  christopher@floridalegal.org
                  rachel.ortiz@floridalegal.org

               - and -

          Kelly Knapp, Esq.
          Leonard J. Laurenceau, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          4770 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (786) 347-2056
          E-mail: kelly.knapp@splcenter.org
                  leo.laurenceau@splcenter.org

              - and -

          Dante P. Trevisani, Esq.
          Laura A. Ferro, Esq.
          Sam Thypin-Bermeo, Esq.
          Marcel A. Lilavois, Jr., Esq.
          Kara Wallis, Esq.
          FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
          2915 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 300-21
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 358-2081
          E-mail: dtrevisani@floridajusticeinstitute.org
                  lferro@floridajusticeinstitute.org
                  sthypin-bermeo@floridajusticeinstitute.org
                  Mlilavois@floridajusticeinstitute.org
                  kwallis@floridajusticeinstitute.org

FORD MOTOR: Faces Cunningham Suit Over Defective Trucks' Tailgate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM and TRI-STATE COLLISION, LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 4:21-cv-10781-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 7, 2021) seeks
damages and equitable relief, individually and on behalf of the
other Class members, each of whom purchased or leased one or more
model year 2017-2021 Ford F-250, F-350, and F-450 Super Duty
vehicles equipped with an electronic tailgate latch release switch
(the Class Vehicles).

The Class Vehicles are Ford's "Super Duty" pickup trucks that are
marketed and used for hauling and towing heavy cargo and
equipment.

In the Class Vehicles, the tailgate latch release is electronic and
can be activated by depressing a button on the key fob, in the cab
of the truck above the emergency brake release switch, or on the
tailgate itself. The tailgate system in the Class Vehicles,
however, is defective because the tailgates unintentionally open,
including while the vehicle is in motion (Tailgate Defect), the
suit says.

The Tailgate Defect could be caused by water entering the wiring
harness and shorting the circuit, as Ford admits, or it could be
caused by wiring system design or manufacturing flaws, a tailgate
latch that fails to hold sufficient tension, or a tailgate system
that is not adequately robust to withstand common operating
conditions, added the suit.

Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and
incorporated on June 16, 1903. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          Lydia Reynolds, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  demet.basar@beasleyallen.com
                  mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
                  lydia.reynolds@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com

FORD MOTOR: Rodriguez Sues Over Mustang Vehicles' Defective Harness
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02553 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraudulent omission, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
manufacturing, advertising, and marketing of 2015–2017 Ford
Mustang vehicles with defective trunk lid wiring harness. The
defective wiring harness can and does interfere with the backup
camera, trunk release, trunk light, and satellite radio reception,
and poses a significant safety risk to drivers and occupants of the
said vehicles and the public. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members received less
than what they paid for their Mustang vehicles and did not receive
the benefit of their bargain.

Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer with its principal
place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Ben Barnow, Esq.
         Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
         BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 621-2000
         Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
         E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                 aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

               - and –

         Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
         Christopher Stiner, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and –

         Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585

FRESH ON: Court Tosses Frank Bid to Certify Class of Servers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TESSA FRANK, v. FRESH ON
THE SQUARE LLC, d/b/a BLUEFIN BAR & GRILL, Case No.
5:20-cv-00372-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody
Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:

   "All servers who worked for [Bluefin Bar & Grill] within
Florida
   during the five years preceding this lawsuit who were not paid
   full and proper minimum wage as a result of [Bluefin Bar &
   Grill’s] illegal tip pooling practices."

Although the Court concludes that class certification is not
appropriate at this time, the Court pauses to address Bluefin's
argument that Frank should have moved to certify the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage claim as a collective action
before she moved to certify a class under Rule 23.

Unlike a Rule 23 class action, participants in a section 216(b)
collective action must affirmatively opt-in, and the Court
evaluates a plaintiff's motion for collective action certification
using a different, more lenient standard. As Frank pointed out in
her reply, the Eleventh Circuit recently clarified that although an
"FLSA collective action and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action may be
fundamentally different creatures they are not irreconcilable," so
a plaintiff may attempt to bring both types of actions in the same
lawsuit.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as Bluefin Bar &
Grill, located in The Villages, Florida. Defendant employs several
servers, bartenders, hosts, bussers, and runners. The Plaintiff
Tessa Frank worked for the Defendant as a server from approximately
April 2018, through April 2020. Frank was responsible for serving
food and beverages and adhering to company standards for food and
beverages. Frank typically worked 30-40 hours per week. Bluefin
allegedly paid Frank an hourly wage that was less than the federal
minimum wage. Frank earned tips in addition to the hourly wage.
Bluefin paid Frank according to what is commonly referred to as the
"tip credit."

The Plaintiff contends that throughout their employment with
Bluefin, she and the putative class members were forced to
improperly share tips with expeditors who were instructed not to
leave the kitchen "for either all or most of their work shifts."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33O5B3R at no extra charge.[CC]

FRITO-LAY NORTH: Corn Chips' Lime Label "Deceptive," Barnett Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00470-RJD (S.D. Ill., May 11, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its corn chips under the Tostitos brand. The corn chips' front
label representations include "Hint of Lime" and "Squeeze in More
Flavor" which give consumers impression that the product contains
squeezed lime ingredients. However, the product's lime taste is
mainly from added limonene and citral, through the isomers neral
and geranial, and it lacks the other compounds essential to a
lime's taste. The product is unable to confer any of the
health-related benefits because it has less lime ingredients than
it purports to. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it, says the suit.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc. is a seller of corn and potato chips,
with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas, Collin County.
[BN]

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

GARUDA LABS: Daniels Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEANGELO DANIELS, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, v. GARUDA LABS, INC. DBA
INSTAWORK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21CV379147 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
April 5, 2021) is a class action complaint seeking unpaid overtime,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums and
minimum wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in November 2020 and
was classified by Defendants as an independent contractor. The
Defendants hired the Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as independent contractors in Violation of
California law, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked
and for missed meal periods and/or rest breaks, the suit says.

Garuda Labs, Inc. operates as a consultancy agency for companies
that wish to hire workers on a permanent or temporary basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     County of Santa Clara
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 265-1020
     Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Martell's 1st Amended Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM MARTELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-284-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denies GM's
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiff Martell brings the putative class action against GM.  In
his FAC, Martell alleges violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practice Act (UTPA), breach of express warranty, fraudulent
concealment, and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiff asserts all
claims on behalf of an Oregon statewide class.  He seeks monetary,
declaratory, and injunctive relief.

In 2011, the Plaintiff bought a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped
with a Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine from a
Chevrolet dealership in The Dalles, Oregon.  His car was covered by
GM's standard five-year express warranty.  In 2015, the Plaintiff
noticed that his vehicle was consuming excessive engine oil, and he
began experiencing engine problems related to the excessive oil
consumption.  He then took his vehicle to the Dealership for
service numerous times.  Throughout 2015 and 2016, the Dealership
repeatedly told him that his oil consumption level was "normal."

In late 2016, the Plaintiff's counsel investigated a suspected
defect causing his car to consume excess oil (the Oil Consumption
Defect).   In July 2017, the Dealership conducted an oil
consumption test on the Plaintiff's car.  Upon receiving the
results of this test, which confirmed that the vehicle was using
excessive oil, the Plaintiff joined a class action lawsuit in the
Northern District of California on Aug. 31, 2017 (Sloan v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-7244-EMC (N.D. Cal.)).  That court,
however, dismissed Plaintiff from the Sloan Action on Feb. 11,
2020, concluding that under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct.
of Cal., S.F. Cnty., 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), the Northern District
of California lacked personal jurisdiction over GM regarding the
Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff then filed the lawsuit on Feb. 19, 2020, alleging
that the Subject Engine is defectively designed and asserting
claims of breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), fraudulent omission, violation of the
UTPA, and unjust enrichment. GM moved to dismiss, which the Court
granted in part with leave to amend.  The Court denied the motion
with respect to the Plaintiff's claim of unjust enrichment but
granted it with respect to all other claims.  The Plaintiff filed
his FAC on Oct. 20, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the primary cause of the Oil Consumption
Defect is that the "piston rings that GM installed within the
Subject Engines fail to keep oil in the crankcase."  He also
alleges other problems, including issues with the Active Fuel
Management System, the Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system,
the Oil Life Monitoring System, and the oil pressure gauge
indicator on the dashboard.  He contends that GM knew of and
intentionally concealed the Oil Consumption Defect, and that GM has
failed to compensate him and the putative class members for the
resulting damage.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
GM moves to dismiss all claims.

Discussion

Judge Simon first discusses GM's arguments against the Plaintiff's
claim of fraudulent concealment.  He next turns to GM's contentions
against the Plaintiff's claim under the UTPA.  Finally, the Judge
addresses GM's motion against the Plaintiff's claim of breach of
express warranty.

A. Fraudulent Concealment

GM argues that the Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim fails
because he does not allege facts showing that GM took active steps
to conceal any defect, that GM had knowledge of the alleged defect
at the time of sale, or that the Plaintiff reasonably relied on any
false or misleading statement made by GM.  In addition, GM argues
that the allegations in the FAC fail to satisfy the particularity
requirements under Rule 9(b).

Judge Simon finds that (i) if GM had the requisite knowledge, the
allegations plausibly support the Plaintiff's fraudulent
concealment claim by showing an act creating a false impression
intending to cover up the truth or remove an opportunity that might
otherwise have led to the discovery of a material fact; (ii) the
allegations plausibly support a claim for fraudulent concealment;
and (iii) the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support his
claim that GM had knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect.  For
these reasons, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts, with
enough particularity where required, to support his claim of
fraudulent concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect.  Thus, the
Judge denies GM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim of
fraudulent concealment.

B. Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act

GM argues that the Plaintiff's UTPA claim does not satisfy Rule
9(b)'s specificity requirements and that he does not allege facts
establishing GM's knowledge of the alleged defect at the time of
sale or his reasonable reliance.  In Pearson v. Philip Morris,
Inc., relied on by GM, the Oregon Supreme Court analyzed causation
and reliance in the context of a claim involving both alleged
misrepresentations and material omissions.  The court in Pearson
explained that a UTPA claim does not itself require reliance, but
reliance must be shown if it is integral to the underlying unlawful
trade practice. Id. The court further noted that under the UTPA, a
"plaintiff must suffer a loss of money or property that was caused
by the unlawful trade practice.  Whether, to prove the requisite
causation, a plaintiff must show reliance on the alleged unlawful
trade practice depends on the conduct involved and the loss
allegedly caused by it."

As he discussed, Judge Simon finds that the Plaintiff has
adequately pleaded active steps to conceal, GM's knowledge, and
reliance.  The UTPA imposes no additional requirements on the
predicate claim for an unlawful trade practice.  Thus, the Judge
denies GM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim under the
UTPA.

C. Breach of Express Warranty

GM argues that the Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim
cannot proceed because GM's Five-Year Limited Warranty applies only
to manufacturing defects, but the Plaintiff alleges a design
defect.  Throughout the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges only a design
defect when describing the faulty piston rings and other vehicle
components causing or contributing to the Oil Consumption Defect.

Judge Simon agrees with the Plaintiff.  The inclusion of
time-limiting text in a provision already covered by time-limiting
test may be redundant and unnecessary, but it does not contradict
or render absurd the plain text and meaning of the clause when
considered under the other terms of the express warranty, which
provide that the entire warranty is only valid for a limited
period.  GM argues that the Court may not interpret an express
warranty in a way that renders one of its terms or provisions
superfluous.  In doing so, GM asks the Court instead to construct
an entirely new meaning that is different from the one suggested by
a plain reading of the clause itself and the warranty as a whole.
Judge Simon declines to rewrite an entire clause, changing its
meaning in significant ways, to avoid a redundancy drafted by GM.
Thus, he denies GM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach of
warranty claim.

Conclusion

Judge Simon denies GM's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2erp9buf from Leagle.com.

Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
PLLC, Seattle, WA; Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dicellolevitt.com --
John E. Tangren -- jtangren@dicellolevitt.com -- and Daniel R.
Ferri -- dferri@dicellolevitt.com -- DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC,
Chicago, IL; and W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III --
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- H. Clay Barnett III --
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com -- and J. Mitch Williams --
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com -- BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES PC, in Montgomery, Alabama, Of Attorneys for
Plaintiff and the Proposed Class.

Kathleen Taylor Sooy -- ksooy@crowell.com -- and April N. Ross --
aross@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, in Washington, D.C.; and
Jennifer L. Campbell -- jcampbell@schwabe.com -- and Stephanie C.
Holmberg -- sholmberg@schwabe.com -- SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
PC, in Portland, Oregon, Of Attorneys for Defendant.


GENERAL MOTORS: Pankow Sues Over False, Deceptive Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Pankow, Arthur Cohen, Bruce James Cannon, Michael Hickey
and John Derosa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and E.G.P., a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem
MICHELLE PANKOW, individually v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and Does 1
through 5, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-11099-RHC-KGA (C.D. Cal.,
May 13, 2021), is brought on behalf of themselves individually and
a class of current and former owners and lessees of 2017-2019 model
year Chevrolet Bolt vehicles ("Class Vehicles") that were marketed
and sold with false representations regarding the Class Vehicles'
battery life.

According to the complaint, this action arises from the pervasive
false advertisements disseminated by Defendant GM that overstate
the potential battery mileage of the Class Vehicles because as it
now acknowledges, the batteries within the Class Vehicles are
dangerously defective in that they are susceptible to spontaneously
igniting when fully or nearly fully charged ("Battery Defect"). The
action also alleges claims resulting from injuries suffered
uniquely by Plaintiffs Michelle Pankow and E.G.P. from damages
caused by the failure of the battery in Plaintiff Pankow's car,
which caused extensive damage to her home and caused physical and
emotional damage to both herself and her two-year old daughter,
Plaintiff E.G.P.

The Plaintiffs allege that the lithium ion batteries and related
management systems of the Class Vehicles are defective and unsafe
in that they are inadequate to prevent thermal runaway and
spontaneous ignition of the batteries in the Class Vehicles. As a
result of GM's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business
practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or
property and/or loss in value. The unfair and deceptive trade
practices GM has committed were conducted in a manner giving rise
to substantial aggravating circumstances. Had Plaintiffs and other
Class members known at the time of purchase or lease of the true
range of the Class Vehicles and the propensity of the batteries
installed in the Class Vehicles' to burst into flame, they would
not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid
substantially less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Class Vehicles from the Defendant.

The Defendant designs, tests, manufactures, distributes, warrants,
sells, and leases various vehicles under several prominent brand
names, including but not limited to Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and
Cadillac this district and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Phone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 dcw@mccunewright.com
                 sah@mccunewright.com
                 mir@mccunewright.com


GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Crawford Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DARIA CRAWFORD and AHMED ABDELHAMID, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
PRESIDENTS AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE, Defendant. MAAZ
QURESHI, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, and DANISH ARIF, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case Nos. 20-cv-1539 (CRC), 20-cv-1886
(CRC), 20-cv-1141 (CRC), 20-cv-1454 (CRC), 20-cv-1555 (CRC)
(D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia grants the motions to dismiss filed by
Georgetown University and American University.

As the COVID-19 pandemic upended daily life in spring 2020,
countless institutions of higher education suspended in-person
classes and activities and temporarily moved them online.  Two of
those institutions were Georgetown University and American
University.

In these putative class actions, Georgetown and American students
seek a partial refund of tuition and fees they paid for the spring
2020 semester.  The students do not dispute that it was reasonable
under the circumstances to pause on-campus education, but they
claim that the universities owe them compensation for failing to
deliver a full semester of the traditional college experience that
the students reasonably expected when they enrolled.

Ms. Crawford filed a putative class action against Georgetown in
June 2020, seeking partial refunds of tuition and fees on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated students.  Mr. Abdelhamid filed
a similar complaint in the District of New Jersey, which
transferred the case to this district.  Meanwhile, the three named
American plaintiffs filed their putative class actions in quick
succession.  Mr. Qureshi filed a complaint in the Court in May
2020, followed by Mr. Rabinowitz in June.  Mr. Arif filed his
complaint in the Southern District of Florida in May 2020, and the
case was transferred to the Court.

In July 2020, the Court consolidated the two cases against
Georgetown and separately consolidated the three cases against
American.  The following month, both sets of plaintiffs filed
consolidated Amended Complaints against their respective schools.
The universities then moved to dismiss the Amended Complaints.
Both motions to dismiss are now fully briefed.  In addition to
their motion papers, both sides have filed -- and the Court has
reviewed -- numerous notices of supplemental authority regarding
decisions in similar lawsuits against other universities that
suspended in-person classes due to COVID-19.

In February 2021, the Court held a combined hearing by
videoconference on both universities' motions to dismiss.

Both Amended Complaints seek a partial refund of (1) tuition and
(2) student fees based on claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion. In addition, the Georgetown plaintiffs
include a claim for money had and received, and the American
plaintiffs accuse their university of unlawful and deceptive trade
practices in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures
Act.

Judge Cooper considers whether to dismiss each claim as it relates
to tuition, then repeat the analysis as to fees.  Because the
issues are largely common to both Georgetown and American, he
addresses them together, except where necessary to distinguish
between the universities.

Judge Cooper opines that Georgetown and American are not alone in
facing litigation over the interruption of in-person learning due
to COVID-19.  Many similar cases have been filed across the
country, and courts have divided on whether these complaints raise
plausible claims for breach of contract and other causes of action.
As these mixed results suggest, these cases raise difficult legal
issues and require close attention to the facts alleged against
each individual university.

After careful consideration, Judge Cooper concludes that the
Georgetown and the American students have failed to state valid
claims.  He has no trouble accepting that the students expected a
campus-based semester.  Under normal conditions, the universities
might be obligated to fulfill that expectation.  Yet, the students'
allegations do not support a plausible inference that the
universities promised away their discretion to make reasonable
modifications in response to radically changed circumstances, such
as moving classes online to keep students and faculty safe during
the deadly and uncertain early months of a once-in-a-century
pandemic.

The Judge, therefore, dismisses the claims against both
universities.  Accordingly, he grants both the universities'
motions to dismiss.  Separate Orders will accompany the Memorandum
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/p6r3katu from Leagle.com.


GOGO INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOGO) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that on
April 26, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss a putative class action complaint alleging that
Gogo would not be able to meet its previously issued 2018 guidance;
and (d) as a result, GOGO's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a GOGO investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.  The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.,
1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780.  Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]



GOLD POINT: Faces Acosta Suit Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD POINT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV17457 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 10, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
by misclassifying employees as independent contractors, charging
unlawful fees and making unlawful deductions from the employees'
wages, failing to pay the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked, failing to furnish accurate and compliant itemized wage
statements, failing to maintain accurate records, and failing to
reimburse all necessary expenditures incurred.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a truck driver
from approximately April 2018 through the present.

Gold Point Transportation, Inc. is a trucking company in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
         Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
         Milan Moore, Esq.
         Romina Tamiry, Esq.
         LIDMAN LAW, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 322-4772
         Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
         E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                 enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                 mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
                 rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com

                - and –

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

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Hart Suit Over Adjusters' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN OLIVIA HART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00859-MWB (M.D. Pa., May 12,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a Region 1
adjuster from May 2018 through the present.

Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto
insurance company, with its headquarters located in Chevy Chase,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Zachary E. Nahass, Esq.
         CGA LAW FIRM
         135 North George Street
         York, PA 17401
         Telephone: (717) 848-4900
         Facsimile: (717) 843-9039
         E-mail: znahass@cgalaw.com

HOME DEPOT: Almanzar Must File Class Status Bid by Feb. 9, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE ALMANZAR, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., a MANAGEMENT DATES DUE TO Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00699-TLN-KJN (E.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley
entered an order that:

   1. The parties' deadline to Complete Phase I Discovery is
      continued to December 13, 2021;

   2. The parties' deadline to Disclose Expert Witnesses is
      continued to December 13, 2021;

   3. The parties' deadline to Complete Designation of Supplemental

      Expert Witnesses is continued to January 31, 2022; and

   4. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Motion for Class
      Certification is February 9, 2022.

Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered in incorporated Cobb County, Georgia, with
an Atlanta mailing address.

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

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No. 21
CH 1421, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02512 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to have a
written policy and failing to destroy biometric identifiers and
information; collecting, capturing, and obtaining biometric
identifiers and information without informing students; requiring
students to use Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring
tool; and disseminating students' biometric identifiers and
information to its instructors and other agents without the
students' consent to the disclosure.

Illinois Institute of Technology is a private research university
in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         William T. "Toby" Eveland, Esq.
         Christopher Naveja, Esq.
         Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq.
         Andrew E. Bollinger, Esq.
         SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
         161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 876-7100
         E-mail: toby.eveland@saul.com
                 christopher.naveja@saul.com
                 elizabeth.thompson@saul.com
                 andrew.bollinger@saul.com

INFORMATION RESOURCES: EPA Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL SANTIAGO and
SCARLETT OSORIO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
female employees, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC., and JEFF NEUMAN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07688-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a representative
      collective action pursuant to the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 29
      U.S.C. section 216 (b), on behalf of:

      "all female analysts, consultants, principals, vice
      presidents, and senior vice presidents ("Consultants")
      employed by the Defendants within three years prior to the
      filing of the Plaintiffs' complaint ("Covered Employees");

   2. approving court-facilitated notice of this EPA action to
      Covered Employees, including consent form (opt-in form) as
      authorized by the EPA;

   3. approving the proposed EPA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. directing the Plaintiffs' Counsel to send a Court Approved
      reminder notice half way through the opt-in period;

   5. approving the proposed EPA reminder notice;

   6. directing production in Microsoft Excel format, a spreadsheet

      with the names, titles, compensation rates, last known
      mailing addresses, email addresses, all known telephone
      numbers (including cell phone numbers), social security
      numbers, and dates of employment of all Covered Employees
      employed by Defendants at any point in time from three years

      prior to the date the Plaintiffs filed the complaint;

   7. equitable tolling of the statute of limitations until such
      time that Plaintiffs' counsel is able to send notice to
      potential opt-in plaintiffs; and

   8. such other and further relief, in law or equity, as this
      Court may deem appropriate and just.

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

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs as well as the putative
Collective, are:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
          E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com

ISABELLA GUZMAN: Greer's Ranch Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isabella Casillas
Guzman, et al. The case is styled as Greer's Ranch Cafe, Philip
Greer, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Isabella Casillas Guzman, in her official capacity as administrator
of the Small Business Administration, United States Small Business
Administration, Case No. 4:21-cv-00651-O (N.D. Tex., May 13,
2021).

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

Isabella Casillas Guzman is an American government official serving
as the administrator of the Small Business Administration in the
Biden administration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan F Mitchell, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 686-3940
          Fax: (512) 686-3941
          Email: jonathan@mitchell.law

               - and -

          Charles W Fillmore, Esq.
          H Dustin Fillmore, III, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM LLP
          201 Main Street, Suite 801
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Phone: (817) 332-2351
          Fax: (817) 870-1859
          Email: chad@fillmorefirm.com

               - and -

          Gene Patrick Hamilton, Esq.
          AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
          300 Independence Ave SE
          Washington, DC 20003
          Phone: (202) 964-3721
          Email: gene.hamilton@aflegal.org

               - and -

          Robert Earl Henneke, Esq.
          TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
          901 N Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 472-2700
          Fax: (512) 472-2728
          Email: rhenneke@texaspolicy.com


J-M MANUFACTURING: Hearing on CLL Class Cert Bid Resumes in May 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, v.
J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. dba J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
et al., Case No. CV 10-6638-GW-PJWx (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge
George H. Wu entered an order that the hearing on the proposed
class certification currently scheduled for May 10, 2021, is
continued to May 20, 2021 at 8:30 A.M.

J-M manufacturers of plastic pipe, fittings and tubing products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eQ0ruw at no extra charge.[CC]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Lifshitz Law Announces Company Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeld-Wen Holding, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
announces that on October 26, 2020, the Court issued an Order
denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss a putative class action
complaint alleging that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a price-fixing
conspiracy and that as a result of Defendants' misrepresentations,
shares of Jeld-Wen's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period.

If you are a JELD investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.  The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.,
1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780.  Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]



JUUL LABS: School Corp. Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PENN-HARRIS-MADISON SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03489 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation is a public school
corporation with its administrative offices are located on
Bittersweet Road in Mishawaka, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

JVST GROUP: Faces Vlad Suit Over Deceitful Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Maria Vlad, Individually and On Behalf Of Others Similarly
Situated, v. JVST GROUP d/b/a WONDERCREATURE, Case No. 0-2021
-0119j|692-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., April 5, 2021)
alleges that the Defendant violated the California's Song Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendant is a manufacturer of products and advertises that its
products are sold. The Defendant includes within its product
packaging a warranty activation card and makes its warranty
registration form available online.

As a result of Defendant's alleged unlawful and deceitful business
practices, the Defendant is able to chill warranty claims and
benefit economically by duping consumers into thinking they do not
have warranty rights unless they fill out the form and provide
their personal information to Defendant.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the County of Orange,
State of California. The Defendant was engaged in the business of
marketing, supplying, and selling its products, including the
Product purchased by the Plaintiff, to the public through a system
of marketers, retailers and distributors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Adib Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 W. Town and Country Rd., Ste 1250
          9 Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (800) 500-0301
          Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
          E-mail: adib@blackoaklaw.com

KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Wercberger Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Baila Wercberger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., Cach, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02677-WFK-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).

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

Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy is third party, debt collection law
firm and collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com


KPMG LLP: Objections to Exclusion Ruling in Cosby Suit Overruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEWIS COSBY, ERIC MONTAGUE, and MARTIN ZIESMAN, as
Co-Trustee for the Carolyn K. Ziesman Revocable Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KPMG,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-121-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge
Thomas A. Varlan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee overruled the parties' objections to
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin's order.

The Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Chad
Coffmanit regarding the purported efficiency of the markets for
Miller Energy's securities and whether damages can be calculated on
a class-wide basis.

On May 21, 2019, Defendant KPMG filed the motion to exclude.  On
Dec. 10, 2019, Judge Poplin held a hearing regarding the motion to
exclude, among other motions.  She then issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendant's motion.  Both parties
filed objections to Judge Poplin's Order, responses to each other's
objections, and replies.

I. Analysis

The Plaintiffs object to Judge Poplin's conclusion to exclude the
opinion of their expert, Coffman, on price impact.  The Defendant
Tmade 12 objections about Judge Poplin's rulings on reliability: wo
regarding Coffman's opinions, four concerning Coffman's methodology
for analyzing market efficiency, three about the methodology for
preferred stock event studies, and two as to Coffman's methodology
for calculating damages.  Finally, the Defendant objects to Judge
Poplin's ruling that there should not be an evidentiary hearing.

A. Plaintiffs' objection

The Plaintiffs object to the exclusion of Coffman's price impact
opinion that was included in his corrected expert report, but not
in the original.  They argue that the Defendant did not move for
exclusion on that basis and that Judge Poplin's ruling was
erroneous and contrary to law because it was not a new opinion.
Instead, the Plaintiffs assert it was a rebuttal to one of the
Defendant's arguments, and that even if the opinion failed to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the error was
substantially justified and harmless.

Judge Varlan is not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' argument that the
Defendant did not move to exclude the opinion on the basis of
timeliness.  The Defendant included this argument in their
memorandum in support of the motion.  The memorandum is designed to
further expound upon the shorter motion, and the local rules state
that the briefs will include a concise statement of the grounds to
justify relief.  The Defendant's brief includes this ground for
relief.  For these reasons, Judge Poplin's ruling that this is a
new opinion and should be stricken is not clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law, and the Plaintiffs' objection is overruled.

B. Defendant's Objections on Reliability of Coffman's Opinions

First, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's ruling that
Coffman's opinion on the efficiency of the market for common stock
is reliable.  The Plaintiff argues that the cases the Defendant
cites reject expert opinions for their merit, which is not at issue
in a Daubert challenge at this junction.  Instead, the focus is on
the methodology of the expert's analysis.

Judge Varlan opines that Judge Poplin correctly found that these
cases go toward the weight of the opinion in that there is a
possibility this data may not establish market efficiency but that
they do not go toward exclusion.  Disagreement with Coffman's
conclusion that there were efficient markets is not grounds for
exclusion.  Disputes about the conclusion Coffman reached are to be
addressed at a different point in the litigation.  Where the
admissibility, not the merit, is at issue, the Defendant has not
shown Judge Poplin's ruling was contrary to law, and the objection
is overruled.

Second, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's conclusion that
Coffman's errors regarding market efficiency of the preferred stock
go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the opinion.  It
relies upon the case law presented in the previous objection and
identifies some of its expert's findings on the issue.  For the
same reasons as described, Judge Poplin correctly found that the
criticisms of the opinion go toward its weight, not its
admissibility, and the objection is overuled.

C. Defendant's Objections on Methodology for Analyzing Market
Efficiency

First, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's conclusion "that
Coffman's methodology for identifying the dates and times of events
and news days is reliable" and that she did not offer an
explanation for why the Defendant's arguments were not well taken
or address that the errors in Coffman's calculations were
fundamental.

Judge Varlan holds that the Defendant fails to identify an error in
the methodology instead of the data input into that methodology.
The cases it cites in support of its argument are taken out of
context.  The Defendant offers no caselaw to support that defects
in the data or application, rather than in the methodology, are
grounds for exclusion.  Judge Poplin's conclusion was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law, and the Defendant's objection is
overruled.

Second, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's conclusion that
Coffman's methodology "controlled for market reactions cause by
other events and disclosures around the same dates and times."
Additionally, it objects to Judge Poplin's ruling that this
criticism goes to the weight of the opinion.

Judge Varlan finds that the Defendant's statement that the test was
unsupported by evidence or backup data is contradicted by Coffman's
deposition wherein he stated the backup data would have reflected
such an analysis, but he simply could not remember at the present
time.  Whether or not it was appropriately reflected in the data or
the extent to which he controlled for other events could be
analyzed on cross-examination.  Exclusion of the whole opinion is
not appropriate for the potential omission of one step early in the
analysis where there are further opportunities to clarify the
opinion.  Judge Poplin's conclusion is thus not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, and the Defendant's objection is overruled.

Third, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's conclusion that
Coffman "properly controlled for the price of oil."   Coffman had
used the incorrect index and claimed the error had no impact on his
conclusions.  It contends this was a significant error in the
application of his methodology.  Judge Varlan opines that Judge
Poplin properly considered the parties' arguments, and the
conclusion was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Fourth, the Defendant argues Judge Poplin "incorrectly concluded
that Coffman's methodology need not be subject to heightened
scrutiny" because it was devised solely for litigation.  The
Plaintiffs argue that this methodology is used in "nearly every
securities case litigated over the past 20 years" and that
defendant has not cited any cases wherein this was subjected to
heightened scrutiny.

Citing Coffman's degrees in economics and public policy and
experience in managing analysis in this area, Judge Poplin
concluded that the opinion was not subject to heightened scrutiny.
The Defendant fails to identify how the ruling was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.  His objection is thus overruled.

D. Defendant's Objections on Methodology for Preferred Stock Event
Studies

First, the Defendant objects that Judge Poplin incorrectly
concluded that Coffman's computation of returns on the preferred
stock were reliable.  It argues that Coffman incorrectly computed
the returns by ignoring the dividend payments that the investors
received, which affected coefficients for a few of the regression
models and later affected the statistical significance of event
days.  While Judge Poplin found this error was one in the data that
goes to weight, the Defendant contends this error was in the
methodology of calculating returns or the application of the
methodology, which goes to admissibility.

Judge Varlan holds that in the case, where the error was made by an
accidental omission, should not exclude the expert opinion.
Rejection of expert testimony is the exception, rather than the
rule. This ruling was not contrary to law, and the Defendant's
objection is therefore OVERRULED.

Second, the Defendant objects that Judge Poplin "incorrectly
concluded that Coffman's methodology for the preferred stock event
studies was not reliable even though he altered his methodology and
followed a non-standard practice."  However, it does not provide
the Court with any basis to support its claim that Coffman's method
was non-standard, biased, unscientific, or inappropriate.  While
true that courts may exclude testimony when it is unscientific or
biased, the Defendant fails to show how this evidence here was
actually unscientific or biased, and how Judge Poplin's decision
was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  His objection is thus
overruled.

Third, the Defendant objects that Judge Poplin did not
appropriately address Coffman's autocorrelation analysis and that
the conclusion stating this issue goes toward class certification
is incorrect, as the data does not support his opinion.  It then
repeats arguments describing why Coffman's analysis is incorrect.

However, Judge Poplin did in fact address the autocorrelation
analysis.  She reviewed the parties arguments, the general concept
of autocorrelation, the experts' disagreements and opinions on the
issue, and concluded that the dispute was a matter for
consideration on whether the Basic assumption applies during class
certification.  dditionally, the case defendant cites for the
proposition that "an expert's testimony is unreliable and must be
excluded if his data does not support his opinions" [Doc. 189 p.
26] actually states that the opinion has a flaw when the "theory
does not match the facts."  Judge Poplin's ruling was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law, and the objection is overruled.

E. Defendant's Objections on Calculating Damages

The Defendant first objects to Judge Poplin's ruling finding
Coffman's Section 11 damages methodology is reliable, arguing the
statutory formula cannot be applied without knowing the original
offering price for those shares.  As Judge Poplin determined, the
Defendant's criticism is better suited in determining whether the
Section 11 Class should be certified.  The Defendant has not
provided reasons or cases why the ruling was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law, and the objection is therefore overruled.

Second, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's ruling that the
Section 10(b) damages methodology is reliable.  It states that the
methodology cannot distinguish between high and low risk investors,
as it "must" given the materialization of the risk theory in this
case.

Though the Defendant may not think it is the most apt assessment of
damages, the opinion is still reliable.  Judge Poplin properly
analyzed the parties' arguments, discussed Coffman's measure, and
listed cases wherein this method had been approved.  The Defendant
has not provided reasons Judge Poplin's ruling was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law, and the objection is thus overruled.

F. Defendant's Objection Regarding an Evidentiary Hearing

The Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's ruling to deny an
evidentiary hearing in the case, stating she erred in that
conclusion.  In her order, Judge Poplin stated that the Court held
a motion hearing on Dec. 10, 2019 about all pending motions.
Additionally, she stated "the Court is satisfied that the record is
sufficient" and detailed the large amount of information and
briefing that had been presented to the Court in support of the
motions.  The Defendant argues that the parties were not informed
of an evidentiary hearing, and it did not have an opportunity to
cross-examine Coffman.

However, Judge Varlan finds that the Defendant does not provide any
basis as to why Judge Poplin's ruling was incorrect.  In fact, the
Court is not obligated to hold a Daubert hearing.  The Defendant
had the opportunity to examine Coffman at depositions and does not
provide case law that a hearing was required.  It thus fails to
show why the ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and
this objection is overruled.

II. Conclusion

As Judge Varlan explained, the parties have failed to demonstrate
that Magistrate Judge Poplin's order on the motion to exclude is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as would be required for the
Court to overturn it.  Accordingly, the parties' objections are
overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2d3e3h6c from
Leagle.com.


KPMG LLP: Tennessee District Court Certifies Class in Cosby Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEWIS COSBY, ERIC MONTAGUE, and MARTIN ZIESMAN, as
Co-Trustee for the Carolyn K. Ziesman Revocable Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KPMG,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-121-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge
Thomas A. Varlan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the
Classes, Appoint Class Representatives, and Appoint Class Counsel.

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel.
The Court referred the motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra C.
Poplin, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending
that the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion.  The Defendant filed
objections to the R&R, the Plaintiffs responded, and the Defendant
replied.

Discussion

The Defendant makes several broad objections to the conclusions of
the R&R and makes further objections within each of those
categories.

A. The Section 10(b) Class

First, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's conclusion that
individual issues of reliance will not overwhelm common issues.  In
arguing the fraud on the market presumption does not apply, the
Defendant makes two groupings of objections to Judge Poplin's
conclusion it does apply because (1) the Plaintiffs have not proven
the markets were efficient and (2) the Defendant rebutted the
presumption.

Judge Varlan finds that the Defendant does not identify why the
analysis for the common and the preferred stock need be identical,
especially in light of their expert's statement that these
securities may react differently to various forms of information.
Though the preferred securities did not react to earnings
announcements, Judge Poplin took that into consideration.  Even if
the evidence is not as strong a showing of market efficiency as the
Defendant believes is required, as discussed above regarding the
fifth Cammer factor, the Defendant's arguments are unavailing.
Accordingly, the Defendant's objections with regard to market
efficiency are overruled.

The Judge also finds that though the Defendant notes a disagreement
among district courts about this issue, it does not argue why those
cases are better reasoned, more persuasive, or more applicable
other than reaching their desired conclusion.  Judge Poplin stated
that to rebut the presumption, Basic requires that the defendant
show the investor "would have paid the same price," which it has
not done.  Accordingly, the Defendant's objections with regard to
Judge Poplin's conclusion that it did not rebut the Basic
presumption are overruled.

Second, the Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's ruling that the
Affiliated Ute presumption applies at this stage, citing Affiliated
Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972).  In
support, the Defendant states that the presumption is available
only for claims based primarily on omissions whereas the
Plaintiffs' claims are based on misstatements.  It also states that
Judge Poplin failed to address their argument that the Plaintiff
cannot convert claims based on misstatements into claims based on
omissions.

Judge Varlan holds that the omissions were direct corollaries to
affirmative misstatements.  The truth is not simply correcting a
lie but highlighting new categories of information that were
previously unknown and filling in gaps.  The Defendant's cited
cases did not raise allegations that the audit opinion was both
false and omitted material information, like the case.  The Judge
finds that for purposes of class certification, the Plaintiffs may
invoke the Affiliated Ute presumption as to the alleged omissions,
and the Defendant's objection is therefore overruled.

The Judge also holds that the Defendant's briefing largely repeats
the briefing as contained in the underlying motion, "without
explaining the source of the error" in Judge Poplin's reasoning.
It does not even mention the word "object" in this section, leaving
the Court to find its objection in its preliminary footnote.
Without any additional argumentation for the Court's consideration
and having thoroughly reviewed the briefing and the R&R, the Judge
agrees with Judge Poplin in finding the Defendant's arguments
unpersuasive.  Accordingly, to the extent the briefing may be
considered an objection to Judge Poplin's conclusion on the issue
of individual issues of damages, the objection is overruled.

The Judge further holds that the Defendant is unable to prove that
even one person had actual knowledge.  Individual issues of
timeliness then will not predominate the common issues.
Accordingly, the Defendant's additional argument as to timeliness
is unavailing.

Lastly, the Judge agrees with Judge Poplin's conclusion that the
proposed class representatives' claims are typical.  Whether the
Plaintiffs' claims of reliance were justified may reflect on the
merits a claim, but the Defendant does not support its argument,
either in the original briefing of the motion or in its objections,
that lack of justification defeats typicality.  The Judge agrees
with Judge Poplin's reasoning on this issue, and accordingly,
overruled the Defendant's objection regarding typicality.

B. The Section 11 Class

The Defendant objects to Judge Poplin's (i) conclusion that the
claims of Ziesman are typical of the proposed class; (ii)
conclusion that the Plaintiffs established numerosity with respect
to the Section 11 class; (iii) ruling that individual issues of
reliance will not overwhelm common issues; (iv) conclusion that
individual issues of damages will not overwhelm common issues; (v)
conclusion that individual issues of timeliness will not overwhelm
common issues; (vi) conclusion that the Plaintiffs established the
adequacy requirement; and (vii) decision to defer a ruling on the
proposed class representatives' standing on behalf of Series D
Preferred Stock purchasers.

Judge Varlan holds that (i) with Ziesman's claims arising out of
defendant's alleged misstatements and omissions, like the other
class members, typicality is established; (ii) the Defendant has
not demonstrated any objection to Judge Poplin's conclusion
regarding numerosity, other than identifying potential difficulties
with tracing, an argument that is not properly considered at this
stage; (iii) the Defendant presents a similar argument for
individual issues of reliance to that otherwise addressed in the
"typicality" section; (iv) the determination of the initial
offering price is a tracing problem, which is not appropriate for
consideration at this stage; (v) the Defendant has not presented
evidence regarding the affirmative defense, and the Judge does not
find that the potential application of the statute of limitations
precludes class certification; (vi) the Defendant's adequacy
objection is more properly brought as a dispositive motion rather
than an objection to class certification; and (vii) withholding
decision on standing does not preclude class certification at this
time.

Disposition

For the reasons he discussed, and upon careful, de novo review of
the record and the law, Judge Varlan overrules the Defendant's
objections.  He accepts in whole the R&R and incorporates it into
his Memorandum Opinion and Order.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify the Classes, Appoint Class Representatives, and
Appoint Class Counsel is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t5w7e9p8 from
Leagle.com.


KRAFT HEINZ: Suit Says Macaroni, Cheese Products Contain Phthalates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON CLARKE and MICHELLE DEVERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No.
3:21-cv-02437-RS (N.D. Calif., April 5, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit concerning the presence of harmful chemicals known as
ortho-phthalates ("phthalates") in Defendant's popular Kraft (TM)
Macaroni & Cheese products.

For years, the Defendant has been aware that its Products contain
phthalates but has refused to take steps to remove these chemicals
from the Products. Instead, the Defendant has chosen to prioritize
profits over the safety of the consuming public, the Plaintiffs
contend.

The Plaintiffs bring claims individually and on behalf of a class
of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Products for
breach of implied warranty and fraud. Had Defendant disclosed on
the label that the Product contained phthalates, and the harms that
phthalates can cause, the Plaintiffs would have been aware of those
facts and would not have purchased the products, or at the very
least, would have paid significantly less for them. After learning
of the presence of phthalates in the Product, Mr. Clarke stopped
purchasing the Product. However, Mr. Clarke regularly visits stores
where Defendant's products are sold and remains interested in
purchasing safe macaroni and cheese products. He would consider
purchasing Defendant's Product in the future if Defendant removed
the phthalates.

Ms. deVera purchased Kraft Macaroni & Cheese from Walmart and
Safeway stores located in Union City and Fremont, California.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the Products
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

KUCOIN: Williams Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. KuCoin, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02806-GBD-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Robert W. Lehrhburger entered an order that:

   1. All discovery must be completed on or before July 2, 2021;
      and

   2. Any motion for class certification or default judgment must
      be filed on or before November 2, 2021.

This Order is without prejudice to any party's ability to seek a
further modification of the above deadlines, says the Court.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day
extension to the deadlines for the completion of discovery and for
motions for class certification and default judgment.

This extension is requested in light of the Plaintiff's ongoing
efforts to obtain discovery from Defendants and third parties via
foreign judicial authorities and Rule 45 subpoenas. The Plaintiff
has been diligently pursuing discovery from Defendants and third
parties since the Court's November 11, 2020 approval of Plaintiff's
discovery plan, up to and including the date of this request.

Pursuant to the Court's Order, the current deadline for the
completion of discovery is May 3, 2021, and the current deadline
for any motion for class certification or default judgment is
September 3, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uSYu5T at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104
          E-mail: jgoldstein@selendygay.com



KUCOIN: Williams Seeks 60-Day Extension to Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. KuCoin, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02806-GBD-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension to the
deadlines for the completion of discovery and for motions for class
certification and default judgment.

This extension is requested in light of the Plaintiff's ongoing
efforts to obtain discovery from Defendants and third parties via
foreign judicial authorities and Rule 45 subpoenas. The Plaintiff
has been diligently pursuing discovery from Defendants and third
parties since the Court's November 11, 2020 approval of Plaintiff's
discovery plan, up to and including the date of this request.

Pursuant to the Court's Order, the current deadline for the
completion of discovery is May 3, 2021, and the current deadline
for any motion for class certification or default judgment is
September 3, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uSYu5T at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104
          E-mail: jgoldstein@selendygay.com

LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Arnold Suit Transferred to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eddie Lee Arnold, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated inmates v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney
General of Arkansas, Case No. 6:21-cv-06085 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on May 13,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00402-BSM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Eddie Lee Arnold
          Post Office Box 500
          Grady, AR 71644-0500
          ADC #085892
          Cummins Unit
          PRO SE


LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hamilton Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslie Rutledge. The
case is styled as Ronald J. Hamilton, On behalf of himself and all
others Similarly Situated v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of
Arkansas, Case No. 4:21-cv-00404-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 13, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          Ronald J Hamilton
          Post Office Box 1630
          Malvern, AR 72104
          ADC #133523
          OUACHITA RIVER UNIT
          Arkansas Division of Correction
          PRO SE


LESLIE RUTLEDGE: Hayes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leslie Rutledge. The
case is styled as John Hayes, On behalf of himself and all others
Similarly Situated v. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of
Arkansas, Case No. 4:21-cv-00407-JM (E.D. Ark., May 13, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Leslie Carol Rutledge -- https://arkansasag.gov/ -- is an American
attorney and politician from the state of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

          John Hayes
          Post Office Box 1630
          Malvern, AR 72104
          ADC #145724
          OUACHITA RIVER UNIT
          Arkansas Division of Correction
          PRO SE


LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces Scott Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loomis Armored US,
LLC. The case is captioned as Dashay P. Scott v. Loomis Armored US,
LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00297934-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., April 5, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Loomis Armored Us, LLC is located in Housston, Texas and is part of
the Armored Vehicle Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com

MATTEL INC: Derivative Complaint Filed in Owen Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled THOMAS W. OWEN,
derivatively and on behalf of Mattel, Inc. v. JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER
et. al., Case No. 2021-0417-SG, the Plaintiff filed a verified
stockholder derivative complaint with the Delaware Court of
Chancery on May 12, 2021.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in order to artificially inflate the prices of Mattel
common stock from August 2, 2017 to August 8, 2019.

Mattel, Inc. is a global toy-manufacturing conglomerate, with its
headquarters located in El Segundo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 819-3470
         E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com

                 - and –

         John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
         Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq.
         Matthew Traylor, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400
         Facsimile: (212) 554-1448
         E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com

                 - and –

         Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: jake@blockesq.com

MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Class Action Suit Fails Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit
wasn't certified in a California court after the judge ruled the
plaintiff couldn't represent owners who allege their transmissions
are defective.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all California owners and
lessees of Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with 722.9 7G-Tronic
transmissions.

California plaintiff Terry Hamm is the owner of a 2006
Mercedes-Benz CLK350 vehicle he purchased used in December 2012
from a Toyota dealership. The plaintiff is the fourth owner of the
vehicle.

The Mercedes transmission lawsuit alleges defects cause the
vehicles to enter limp mode which prevents the vehicles from
shifting or accelerating. The plaintiff says his 7G-Tronic
transmission locked into low gear and blocked the vehicle from
accelerating. The Mercedes check engine light also illuminated.

Hamm says he paid $1,051.18 to replace the transmission's conductor
plate and to reprogram its valve body.

The Mercedes-Benz lawsuit alleges Mercedes knew the transmissions
were allegedly defective but failed to disclose the facts to
consumers. In addition, all California Mercedes 7G-Tronic customers
allegedly paid too much for their vehicles.

Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes Transmission Class Action
The judge quickly found confusion with which version of the 722.9
transmission is in Hamm's vehicle. The plaintiff claims his
Mercedes is equipped with the VGS1 version of the 722.9
transmission, but the automaker says the vehicle is really equipped
with the VGS2 version of the 7G-Tronic transmission.

The judge ruled that since the plaintiff's vehicle is not equipped
with the VGS1 version of the 722.9 transmission, there cannot be a
VGS1 subclass of owners represented by Hamm.

In its motion to dismiss the Mercedes class action lawsuit, the
automaker argues the plaintiff cannot represent vehicle owners
because he "purchased his 7-year old used vehicle from a Toyota
dealership without ever interacting with MBUSA [Mercedes] or
reviewing any materials from it; he only glanced at unaffiliated
third-party websites."

According to Mercedes, the plaintiff's situation isn't typical of
other California Mercedes owners.

The judge agreed and said the plaintiff "may be subject to unique
defenses that would render his claims atypical to those of the
class."

Judge Edward J. Davila also agreed with Mercedes when the automaker
argued vehicle owners who had parts of their transmissions
"replaced for free under warranty or goodwill" do not have an
injury, and "their inclusion would render the class impermissibly
overbroad."

Mercedes-Benz also told the judge the vast majority of owners with
vehicles equipped with 722.9 transmissions never experienced any
problems with the transmissions. Then the automaker referenced an
extremely low 0.13% warranty rate for claims related to the 722.9
7G-Tronic transmissions.

The Mercedes transmission class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division: Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Katriel Law Firm, Braun Law
Group, P.C., and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. [GN]


MERIT MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (NasdaqGS: MMSI) Lifshitz Law Firm,
P.C. announces that on March 29, 2021, the Court issued an Order
denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a putative class action
complaint alleging that integrations of Cianna and Vascular
Insights, including their products, sales people, and R&D
facilities, had caused operational disruptions and reduced sales
and were months behind schedule and in light of the foregoing, the
Company's reported financial guidance for fiscal 2019 and 2020 was
made without a reasonable basis.

If you are an MMSI investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.  The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.,
1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780.  Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]



METROPOLITAN LIFE: Access ADA Suit Seeks Equal Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACCESS 4 ALL INCORPORATED and JUAN CARLOS GIL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-21782 (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discrimination against
individuals with disabilities by denying them access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at their commercial
property. The Defendants' commercial property has architectural
barriers which posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and
discomfort to disabled customers, including the Plaintiffs, the
suit says.

Access 4 All Incorporated is a not-for-profit corporation that
maintains its principal office in Torrance, California.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm that owned
and operated a commercial retail center located at 1144 SW 67th
Avenue, Miami, Florida.

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is a company that owned and operated a
retail grocery store business at 948 SW 67th Avenue, Miami,
Florida. [BN]

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

MIDLAND CREDIT: Alter Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIMON ALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:21-cv-04330 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a false, deceptive
and misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff by failing
to adequately explain the third payment option provided on the
letter. The third option to pay monthly payments as low as $50 per
month may results in two different possible interpretations: (1) it
might be construed as an option by which a discounted total amount
is paid by monthly installments of $50 per month and (2) it might
be construed as an option by which monthly installments of $50 are
made until the total debt amount is paid in full. As a result of
the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and unfair debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company doing
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Tamir Saland, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Fletcher Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Sherri Fletcher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-10575-JMV-LDW
(D.N.J., May 3, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MORFOSE USA: Conditioner Contains DMDM Hydantoin, Vlad Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA VLAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 11
situated v. MORFOSE USA, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00646-JLS-KES (C.D.
Calif., April 6, 2021) challenges the deceptive advertising and
business practices of the Defendant Morfose with regard to its
unfair, deceptive, false, and misleading, labeling and marketing
related to MorFose's hair detangling conditioner, Milk Therapy
Milky Two-Phase Conditioner (TM) ("the Product").

The Defendant claims that "Morfose milky two phase conditioner
provides the protection and the care that your hair needs against
the heat, sun, sea and enviromental [sic] factors which are
hostiles of the moisture in the hair."

Despite these claims concerning hair protection and hair benefits,
Defendant's Product contains an ingredient or combination of
ingredients that causes significant hair loss and/or scalp
irritation. For example, at least one ingredient in the Product,
DMDM Hydantoin, is a formaldehyde donor, which means that to work
as a preservative and antimicrobial, it releases small levels of
formaldehyde throughout the shelf-life of a personal care product
or cosmetic product. Formaldehyde is an identified human carcinogen
that can cause cancer and other harmful reactions when absorbed
into a person's skin. Defendant's use of DMDM Hydantoin as a
preservative in the Product is unnecessary because other safer
alternatives exist, the suit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          Ali Sadrarhami, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com
                  ali@kazlg.com

N&C CLAIMS: Amoko Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANESSIA AMOKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. N&C
CLAIMS SERVICE, INC., NICHOLAS F. IERULLI, PAM IERULLI, and SEIBELS
CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-04346-SAL (D.S.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as an FLSA collective
      action and authorizing notice of this action and the right to

      opt-into it to the following persons:

      "All persons who worked for N&C Claims Service, Inc. and
      Seibels Claims Solutions, Inc. in South Carolina as insurance

      claims adjusters and who were classified as independent
      contractors and not paid overtime wages for hours worked over

      40 in a workweek for which they were paid on a pay date at
      any time between December 11, 2016 and the date of final
      judgment in this matter;"

   2. authorizing to disseminate the proposed Notice and reminder
      Notice via mail, text message, and email;

   3. allowing 60 days for Collective Members to return their
      consent to sue forms; and

   4. directing the Defendants to:

      (a) Provide Plaintiffs' Counsel the following information
          with respect to each individual within the above-defined

          collective: first name, last name, street address, city,

          state, zip code, email address, phone number, and unique

          employee identification number. This information should
          be provided in an electronic spreadsheet format such as
          Excel, and each item of information should be set forth
          in a separate column; and

      (b) Produce the last four digits of the social security
          number for all collective action members whose notices
          are returned as undeliverable and for all collective
          action members who have the same names.

N&C Claims  is a full line daily and catastrophe independent
adjusting company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33JPhRI at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Classes
are:

          Blaney A. Coskrey, III, Esq.
          COSKREY LAW OFFICE
          1201 Main Street, Suite 1980
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 748-1202
          Facsimile: (803) 748-1302
          E-mail: coskrey@coskreylaw.com

               - and -

          Meagan Rafferty, Esq.
          Matt Dunn, Esq.
          Rebecca King, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY& DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, New York 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: mrafferty@getmansweeney.com

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Cason Suit Over ERISA & LMRA Violations Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia dismisses the case, AVEION CASON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01875 (TNM) (D.D.C.).

Plaintiffs Aveion Cason and Donald Vincent Majkowski each played in
the NFL for years.  Both now suffer from "total and permanent"
disability and receive monthly benefits as retired players.  They
argue that provisions in a new collective bargaining agreement
("CBA") -- negotiated between NFL teams and the union representing
active players -- will decrease or altogether eliminate their
benefits.  The Plaintiffs invoke the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") and the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA") to halt implementation of these provisions and obtain
other relief.

Defendant National Football League Players Association ("NFLPA") is
the union that represents current NFL players in collective
bargaining.  Defendant National Football League Management Council
("NFLMC") is an association of NFL teams that bargains on the
teams' behalf.  As relevant in the case, the Players Association
and the Management Council ("bargaining parties") negotiated two
CBAs -- one in 2011 and one in 2020.

Through these CBAs, the Players Association and the Management
Council have established and maintained two multi-employer plans
under ERISA: The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan
and the NFL Player Disability and Neurocognitive Benefit Plan.

The Plans provide "total and permanent" ("T&P") disability benefits
to players who are "totally disabled," meaning they are
"substantially prevented from or substantially unable to engage in
any occupation or employment."  The Plaintiffs each receive T&P
disability benefits.  While the Plans provide benefits to four
categories of players, the only category relevant in the case is
the "Inactive A," to which both the Plaintiffs belong.

The Plans were, until recently, maintained under the 2011 CBA.  The
Players Association and the Management Council then agreed to the
2020 CBA.  The 2020 CBA did not affect the Retirement Plan's T&P
disability provisions.

The 2020 CBA included two provisions ("2020 Amendments") relating
to T&P disability benefits under the Disability Plan that are
central to the parties' dispute.  First, the "Social Security
offset," which reduces benefits by the amount of Social Security
benefits that a player receives.  This provision was set to take
effect in January 2021.  Second, the "whole person" evaluation
requirement, which (as its name suggests) states that a player's
eligibility for benefits will turn on a comprehensive evaluation.
Previously, a Social Security determination of disability also
established a player's eligibility for T&P disability benefits.
The CBA makes the "whole person" evaluation process effective in
April 2024.

The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and a putative class
comprising "all participants qualified to receive T&P disability
benefits at the time of the disability amendments to the 2020 CBA
between the NFLPA and NFL Management Council."

The operative complaint raises seven claims under ERISA and one
claim under the LMRA.  In Counts 1 and 2, the Plaintiffs claim that
their T&P disability benefits vested for life and that the 2020
Amendments impermissibly reduced them.  Counts 3 and 4 charge that
the terms of the Plaintiffs' benefits crystallized when Plaintiffs
qualified for them, and the Defendants cannot alter them.  Counts
5-7 claim breaches of fiduciary duty related to alleged
misrepresentations the Players Association made about benefits.
And finally, Count 8 alleges that the Players Association and
Management Council breached the CBA.  The Plaintiffs seek various
forms of equitable relief, including an injunction prohibiting the
Defendants from implementing the new T&P disability provisions.

Before the Court are the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  They
contend that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue some claims
because their alleged injury (the loss of benefits) is too
speculative, too attenuated, or not redressable.  They also argue
that the Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits.

Analysis

Judge McFadden considers the parties' arguments in three groups:
(A) Counts 1-4, which deal with alleged violations stemming from
the changes made to the Plaintiffs' T&P disability benefits; (B)
Counts 5-7, covering purported misrepresentations relating to these
benefits; and (C) Count 8, in which the Plaintiffs assert a breach
of the CBA.

A. Counts 1-4

The Plaintiffs bring Counts 1-4 under ERISA's civil enforcement
provision.

In sum, Judge McFadden opines that the relevant agreements do not
provide for vesting.  He says it is a rare case in which the
parties to the contracts -- the Players Association and the
Management Council -- agree on what the contracts' terms mean.
That makes it an easier case than M & G Polymers USA, LLC v.
Tackett, 574 U.S. 427, 434 (2015), in which the plaintiffs and the
union sued together arguing that plaintiffs' benefits had vested.  
Although the position of the bargaining parties is not dispositive,
it does mean that the Plaintiffs face an uphill battle in arguing
that there is a hidden understanding or that the agreements mean
something other than what they say.  Because the Plaintiffs have
not met that burden and have failed to state a claim, the Judge
dismisses their challenges to the Social Security offset in Counts
1-4.

B. Count 5-7

Counts 5-7 relate to the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations or
omissions about T&P disability benefits.  The Plaintiffs bring each
of these Counts under an ERISA provision, which (as relevant in the
case) sets out requirements for plan fiduciaries.  Counts 5-7 all
suffer from the same flaw: Any injury the Plaintiffs will suffer
from "receiving less disability benefits" as a result of the 2020
CBA is not fairly traceable to the alleged
misrepresentations/omissions and the later failure to correct
them.

Accepting all that as true, Judge McFadden holds that the
Plaintiffs admit that the allegations show only that the "omissions
and misrepresentations of the Defendants 'made it less likely that
the Plaintiffs, members of the Class, or active Players would
oppose ratification of the 2020 CBA.'"  He says it is not enough to
meet Article III's standing requirements.  As the Supreme Court has
made clear, the mere possibility that causation is present is not
enough; the presence of an independent variable between either the
harm and the relief or the harm and the conduct makes causation
sufficiently tenuous that standing should be denied, citing
Mideast, 792 F.2d at 1178 (emphasis added).  The Plaintiffs
therefore lack standing to bring Counts 5-7.

C. Count 8

Finally, in Count 8, the Plaintiffs claim, under Section 301 of the
LMRA, that the Players Association and Management Council breached
the 2020 CBA.  They allege that the bargaining parties
"impermissibly changed" it on March 15, 2020 -- 10 days after the
active players had voted to ratify it -- by making the Social
Security offset apply to both Article 3 and 4 Players, even though
the ratified version had only covered Article 3 Players.  The
Plaintiffs contend that this change violated a provision in the CBA
stating that it "may not be changed, altered, or amended other than
by a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of the
parties," because "the NFLPA, according to its own Constitution,
was not acting as an authorized representative of the Players
without the Players having voted on this substantial change."

Judge McFadden dismisses Count 8 for lack of standing, as the
Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege that their injuries are
redressable.  Whether a court-ordered re-vote would lead to the
elimination of the provisions at issue is speculative at best.
Taking the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it seems just as likely
that the active players would vote to ratify the CBA.  Even if a
re-vote were likely to redress the Plaintiffs' injury, the Judge
doubts that it is an available remedy.  The Plaintiffs cite no
authority for their proposition that the Court could order a
re-vote on ratification of a CBA.

Conclusion

Judge McFadden concludes that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
challenge the whole-person evaluation process in Counts 1-4 because
they have failed to show they will suffer an injury in fact.  They
cannot challenge the Social Security offset in these Counts either
because their disability benefits did not vest and, thus, they have
failed to state a claim.  The Judge dismisses Counts 5-7 on
standing grounds because the Plaintiffs have not shown that any
injury is fairly traceable to the Defendants' alleged actions.  And
lastly, Count 8 fails because a favorable ruling here is unlikely
to redress the Plaintiffs' injuries.  For these reasons, the Judge
dismisses the Plaintiffs' complaint.  A separate Order will be
issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hyvf2u4 from Leagle.com.


NC AFFILIATED: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NC AFFILIATED JV I,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. NC
AFFILIATED JV I, LLC doing business as: ByNext a/k/a NextCleaners,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02680 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).

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

NextCleaners -- https://bynext.co/ -- is the largest and most
advanced eco-friendly dry cleaning 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


NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Meier Files Suit in District of Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netgain Technology,
LLC. The case is styled as Misty Meier, on behalf of her minor
child G. C-M, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Netgain Technology, LLC, Case No.
0:21-cv-01210-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., May 13, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
                 mkberg@locklaw.com
                 kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


NETGEAR INC: Settlement in Pham Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021, that the court granted final
approval of class actions settlement in John Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al.

On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo.

Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo
Technologies Inc. et al. In total, six putative class action
complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa
Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the
six lawsuits.

The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained
false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo's Ultra
product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not
presently named in the federal action.

Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in
deference to the federal court action. The court held a hearing on
April 26, 2019 to consider whether to consolidate the six lawsuits
and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and another hearing on May 31, 2019
to consider defendants' motions to stay the state court cases.

On June 21, 2019, the California state court judge granted the
Company's motion to stay the state court case pending the outcome
of the federal case.

The case will now proceed only in federal court.

On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending
the outcome of the federal action.

On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19,
2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend. On
February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary
approval for classwide settlement.

On June 11, 2020, the Parties signed the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement. On June 12, 2020, lead attorney for plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement. In September 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
Parties' settlement.

The Court issued the final written approval for the settlement
after the March 11, 2021 hearing in the federal matter. Three
individuals who filed suit in state court have requested exclusion
from the settlement.

Subject to resolution with the three individuals who filed suit in
state court, there will be no material financial impact on the
Company.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.

NHS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NHS, Inc. The case is
styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. NHS, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04344 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 13, 2021).

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

NHS, Inc. -- https://nhs-inc.com/ -- is a United States skateboard
distribution company based in Santa Cruz, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


NMCI MEDICAL: Kulik Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA KULIK, JAMES ESKRIGDE, and MARY DUNNING GAROFALO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NMCI MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-03495 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order, and the California Business & Professions Code
including unpaid overtime pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods or provide premiums in lieu thereof, uncompensated business
expenses, and inaccurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as nurse practitioners.

NMCI Medical Clinic, Inc. is a medical practice company in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         402 West Broadway, Ste. 1760
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-2126
         Facsimile: (619) 762-2127
         E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com

NORTH CENTRAL: Compton Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DEREK COMPTON,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. NORTH
CENTRAL VIRGINIA RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a "Papa John's Pizza," Case
No. 5:20-cv-00073-TTC-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying Count II of Plaintiff's First
      Amended Complaint alleging denial of overtime pay;

   2. authorizing him to send notice of this case to:

      "all current and former delivery drivers of defendant North
      Central Virginia Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a "Papa John's"
      employed during the last three (3) years;" and

   3. ordering the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel

      a computer-readable data file containing the names, last
      known addresses, email addresses, and dates of birth, dates
      of employment and store numbers all putative collective
      action members to facilitate notice to them of this pending
      litigation.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hz5G3p at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          DOLLEY LAW, LLC
          12977 N. Outer Forty Drive, Suite 230
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com

               - and -

          Cary Powell Moseley
          LAW OFFICES OF CARY
          POWELL MOSELEY, PLLC
          401 Otey Street
          Bedford, VA 24523
          Telephone: (540) 583-5362
          E-mail: cary@carymoseley.com

NURTURE INC: Faces Gothot Fraud Suit in Northern District of Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is captioned as Gothot v. Nurture, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00742-JPC (N.D. Ohio, April 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged fraud claims and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese.

Nurture, Inc. is located in New York, New York and is part of the
Food Wholesalers Industry. The Defendant Nurture, Inc. is  doing
business as: Happy Family Brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
          Rachel L. Soffin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GREG COLEMAN
          800 South Gay Street, Ste. 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          William F. Cash, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR
          316 S Baylen Street, Ste. 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Brunick Suit
--------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD WARREN BRUNICK v.
KATE BROWN, ECT, AL., COLLETTE PETERS, OR. DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SUP HENDRICKS (SCI), SCI MEDICAL TRANSPORT, Case No.
6:21-cv-00265-SB (D. Oreg.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order staying the individual case brought by Plaintiff Chad
Brunick in Brunick v. Brown, et al, 3:21-cv-00286, pending the
resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney et al. v.
Brown et al., 6:20-cv-00570 (Maney).

This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and related persons in the
District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of
all individual cases that could fit within the putative classes of
plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney. This is one of those cases.

A brief stay in the Brunick matter is appropriate pending the
resolution of the class certification issues in Maney. The
plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, alleging that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to plaintiffs' health by failing to adequately protect
them from COVID-19 through social distancing, testing, sanitizing,
treating, or providing masks, according to Maney, Third Amended
Complaint.

The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes: (1) an injunctive class that is composed of
adults-in-custody that are at high risk of dying from COVID-19, (2)
a damages class that is composed of individuals that have been
housed in ODOC facilities since June 1, 2020 and have contracted
COVID-19; and (3) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals
housed in ODOC facilities who have not been offered COVID-19
vaccination. Similar to the plaintiffs in Maney, Plaintiff Brunick
alleges that he is incarcerated at ODOC, has pre-existing
conditions, and has been exposed to COVID-19 while in the custody
of ODOC.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 3, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QmTqI3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          Andrew Hallman, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
                  Andrew.Hallman@doj.state.or.uss

OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Parkerson et al., Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JACK PARKERSON,
JOSH EDWARDS, JAMES JACKSON, JOSH TURNIDGE, JIMMY FEARS, NOLAN
JAMES DABELL, TIMOTHY MARLER, JOHN DOE/UNCLAIMED PARTIES Nos. 1-3
ECT, ET AL., v. KATE BROWN, COLLETTE PETERS, HEIDI STEWART, MIKE
GOWER, MARK NOOTH, KEN JESKE, JOHN DOES 1-3 ECT, ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-00214-SB (D. Oreg.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter
an order staying the individual case brought by Plaintiffs William
Parkerson, Josh Edwards, James Jackson, Josh Turnidge, Jimmy Fears,
Nolan James Dabell, and Timothy Marker in Parkerson, et al. v.
Brown, et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00214, pending the resolution of the
motion for class certification in Maney, et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570.

This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of
all individual cases that could fit within the putative classes of
plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney.

The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to plaintiffs’ health by failing to adequately
protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing, testing,
sanitizing, treating, or providing masks according to Maney, Third
Amended Complaint.

The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes: (1) an injunctive class that is composed of
adults-in-custody that are at high risk of dying from COVID-19, (2)
a damages class that is composed of individuals that have been
housed in ODOC facilities since June 1, 2020 and have contracted
COVID-19; and (3) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals
housed in ODOC facilities who have not been offered COVID-19
vaccination.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          Andrew Hallman, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
                  Andrew.Hallman@doj.state.or.us

PACTIV LLC: Rodriguez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACK RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PACTIV, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2106379, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May
12, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00841 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Pactiv, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and
foodservice products, headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jon Meer, Esq.
         Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 bpelliconi@seyfarth.com

PARTSBASE INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Francis Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORRAINE FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARTSBASE, INC. and ROBERT A.
HAMMOND, Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80851 (S.D. Fla., May 11,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated sales representatives overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Francis worked for the Defendants as an inside sales
representative in Boca Raton, Florida from July 2017 through July
2019.

PartsBase, Inc. is a provider of aircraft parts, with corporate
offices located at 5401 Broken Sound Boulevard NW, Boca Raton,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq.
         WILLIAMS LAW P.A.
         464 Sturdivant Avenue
         Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
         Telephone: (904) 515-7840
         E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 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 Eastern District of New York against
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON) ("Peloton") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Peloton securities between
September 11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Peloton securities during the Class Period may, no later than June
28, 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/peloton-interactive-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=peloton


Peloton provides interactive fitness products such as the Peloton
Bike and the Peloton Tread+ and Tread, which include touchscreens
that stream live and on-demand classes. Peloton also provides
connected fitness subscriptions and access to all live and
on-demand classes. Peloton launched the Tread+ treadmill in 2018.
At that time, it was called the "Tread." Peloton renamed its
signature treadmill in September 2020 to "Tread +."

The Class Period commences on September 11, 2020, when Peloton
filed its annual report on a Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2020. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants asserted that the
safety and well-being of its customers was a priority.

However, the truth was revealed on April 17, 2021, a day the market
was closed, when the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC") issued a press release entitled "CPSC Warns Consumers:
Stop Using the Peloton Tread+" alerting the public to dangers,
including death, associated with the Peloton Tread+. In the press
release, the CPSC warned "consumers about the danger of popular
Peloton Tread+ exercise machine after multiple incidents of small
children and a pet being injured beneath the machines. The [CPSC]
has found that the public health and safety requires this notice to
warn the public quickly of the hazard." The CPSC further stated
that it "is aware of 39 incidents including one death. CPSC staff
believes the Peloton Tread+ poses serious risks to children for
abrasions, fractures, and death. In light of multiple reports of
children becoming entrapped, pinned, and pulled under the rear
roller of the product, CPSC urges consumers with children at home
to stop using the product immediately."

On April 18, 2021, a day the market was closed, John Foley,
Peloton's Chief Executive Officer, wrote a letter that was emailed
to Tread+ owners and published on Peloton's website stating that
Peloton had "no intention" to stop selling or to recall the Tread+.
Following this news, Peloton's stock price fell $16.28 per share,
or more than 14%, over the next three trading days to close at
$99.93 per share on April 21, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child,
Peloton's Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety
was not a priority to Peloton as the defendants were aware of
serious injuries and death resulting from the Tread+ yet did not
recall or suggest a halt of the use of the Tread+; (3) as a result
of the safety concerns, the CPSC declared the Tread+ posed a
serious risk to public health and safety resulting in its urgent
recommendation for consumers with small children to cease using the
Tread+; (4) the CPSC also found a safety threat to Tread+ users if
they lost their balance; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' statements about Peloton's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Peloton investors may, no later than June 28, 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]



PETER NYGARD: Former Foster Child in U.S. Class Action Comes Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Guyot and Holly Moore at aptnnews.ca report that a former
foster child who is a part of the 2020 U.S class action lawsuit
against former fashion mogul Peter Nygard is coming forward
publicly for the first time.

Identified in the court document up to this point only as "Jane Doe
No. 44," Nadine Moostoos tells APTN Investigates that despite a
traumatic childhood, she is beginning her healing journey after
coming to terms with her past.

Moostoos spent most of her childhood in foster care after she was
apprehended at 18 months of age with her brother and taken into
foster care.

"I got scooped because my mom was a chronic alcoholic and somebody
had called CFS," she said. "She went on a binge and then they came
and picked me and my brother up."

At age 11, she was sent to live at Seven Oaks Youth Centre in
Winnipeg after she said she was abused in her previous foster
homes.

"I was mute. I wasn't talking. I wouldn't talk because of the
abuse," she said. "I couldn't talk. It was so internalized."

Two years later, she was sent to Marymound, a school for troubled
girls where she turned to her peers and the street for support.

"I would just run to the streets," she said. "A lot of those girls
I was in jail with, out on the street with, carried through
addiction with and some aren't even here anymore."

According to the allegations in a U.S. class action lawsuit filed
in 2020, Moostoos met Peter Nygard when she was 14 years old.

The allegations in the complaint (as statements of claim are called
in the American justice system) have not been proven in court. But
they are disturbing.

"Nygard coerced Jane Doe No. 44 to perform oral sex on him in his
car, while parked behind the Nygard Companies' (sic) warehouse,"
the court documents state. "Nygard would become very aggressive
during Jane Doe 44's sexual encounters with him."

The documents also state that Nygard made Moostoos promises.

"Nygard would pay Jane Doe No. 44 after each occasion in U.S.
currency and would continue to promise her that he could take her
to California."

Moostoos said she believed she had a modelling opportunity and told
her mother, who offered to take photographs of her.

Moostoos said she called the Nygard headquarters to follow up.

"I ended up phoning there and I didn't know what to say," she said.
" I was so young and I didn't have anyone speaking for me so I
didn't follow through with it, which I am thankful for. "

Moostoos filed a complaint with the Winnipeg police in 2020 and she
said she believes there may be other Indigenous women with stories
like hers in Canada but they are not likely to come forward.

"It's highly unlikely. It took me a lot of balls and a lot of
courage to do that, coming from the streets," she said. "I did it
because it needed to be done. And I knew I was not the only one."

"It takes a lot for someone to speak up and specifically for
Indigenous women whose voices have been continually silenced
throughout history," said Crystal Brown, who is the Community
Justice Development Coordinator for the Southern Chiefs
Organization.

She said the Indigenous alleged victims of Nygard are especially
vulnerable because of their past traumas.

"To disconnect from your family creates trauma such as violence,
various abuses, mental health issues and it should be addressed
through our culture, through our ceremonies and our language," she
said, adding that the impact of colonization continues to
reverberate throughout Canada.

Moostoos said she worked in the survival sex trade for decades and
is just now facing the trauma of her past.

"I left that life when I got pregnant with my son," she said. "I
quit the lifestyle. I got pregnant and that little boy changed my
life. I call him my gift from God that is what his name means."

Moostoos added the stigma attached to Indigenous women and girls is
very real but she urged other women to come forward.

"The more people that come forward the more of a chance that you'll
get to heal," she said. "That's the start of healing."

"Nobody wants to face their demons, face their past, face the
abuses or social injustices that are predatory like sexual assault,
rape and stuff like that," she said. "I was just a little girl. I
never got a chance to be a little girl."

Nygard's lawyers Jay Prober and Brian Greenspan have not responded
to interview requests.

The 79-year-old was arrested in December last year in Winnipeg
under the Extradition Act. An extradition hearing is set for Nov.
15 to 19 at the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Nygard was denied
bail and an appeal to that decision was turned down in spring
2020.

Nygard remains in custody at the Headingly Correctional Centre west
of Winnipeg. [GN]



PLANNED LIFESTYLE: Faces Gebru Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planned Lifestyle
Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as MEDHANIE GEBRU v.
PLANNED LIFESTYLE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Case No. CGC21590651
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 5, 2021).

The case is assigned to Hon. Samuel K. Feng. A case management
conference will be held on on Sep 8, 2021.[BN]

Planned Lifestyle Services offers concierge, front desk and doorman
services to residential and corporate clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

POST CONSUMER: Settles $15-M Class Lawsuit Over Mislabeled Cereals
------------------------------------------------------------------
ksat.com reports that your morning cereal may mean cash in your
pocket. So might your cup of coffee.

It's not a lot of money, but class action lawsuit settlements
involving, Maxwell House and Yuban ground coffees, as well as
Dollar General motor oil can put a little jingle in the pockets of
eligible consumers.

Post Foods settled a $15 million class action lawsuit alleging the
labels made the cereals seem healthy when they really had added
sugars.

Consumers who bought Post Raisin Bran, Honey Bunches of Oats,
Honeycomb, Alpha-Bits, Bran Flakes, Shredded Wheat and others
between August 29, 2012 and November 2, 2020, may file a claim for
cash.

The average payout is expected to be about $14. No proof of
purchase is needed, and the deadline to file a claim online is May
19.

For more information and to file, visit its website here.

People who bought ground Maxwell House or Yuban coffee may be able
to brew up some bucks. Kraft Heinz settled a $16 million class
action alleging the labels exaggerated the number of cups of coffee
a container makes.

Consumers who bought various varieties between August 27, 2015 and
January 18, 2021 may file a claim by May 18. That website can be
found here.

Eligible people may receive up to $4.80 without proof of purchase
and up to $25 with proof.

There's money in oil if it was Dollar General-branded motor oil
bought between September 1, 2010 and December 2017.

The company settled claims that it mislead consumers and sold old
motor oil that can't be used in modern cars. The affected DG motor
oil is DG SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40.

Customers may get up to $16.80 without proof of purchase. The
deadline to file a claim is June 8.

Consumers whose cars or property was damaged may be able to claim
up to $2,250. That deadline to file a claim is August 23. [GN]


PRESSED JUICERY: Lara Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA LARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC.; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV17365 (E.D.N.Y., May 10,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Private Attorneys General Act by failing, among other things,
to: (1) provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, denying
earned wages, (2) provide specific information on employees'
itemized wage statements, and (3) pay employees on their regular
pay day all owed wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a shift lead from
March 2019 to April 2, 2020.

Pressed Juicery, Inc. is a company that provides cold-pressed
juices located in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Alex Hartounian, Esq.
         HARTOUNIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
         837 South Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200
         Pasadena, CA 91105
         Telephone: (818) 794-9675
         Facsimile: (818) 459-6997
         E-mail: alex@h-lf.com

PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEAN-LOUIS CHALAYE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PRIDE TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2021-2766, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00455 to the proceeding.

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

Pride Transport, Inc. is a trucking company based in Utah. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com

PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Ahrendsen Sues Over Employee Stock Plan's Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARI AHRENDSEN and BARRY CLEMENT, on behalf of the World Travel,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC;
MIGUEL PAREDES; JAMES A. WELLS; JAMES R. WELLS; and RICHARD G.
WELLS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02157 (E.D. Pa., May 11, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The case arises from the Defendants' role in the World Travel, Inc.
(WTI) Employee Stock Ownership Plan's acquisition of 19,860,000
shares of WTI common stock on December 20, 2017, which was financed
by WTI in a fully leveraged transaction with a loan bearing
interest at an annual nominal rate of 2.64% that was to be repaid
over a period of 45 years. The Plan paid a control premium for WTI
even though the Plan did not obtain control over the WTI Board of
Directors upon its 2017 purchase of the company. Further, the Plan
did not receive a discount for lack of control. The Plan therefore
overpaid for WTI. As a result of the Defendants' failure to perform
their fiduciary duties under ERISA, the Plan suffered losses, the
suit says.

Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC is a company that provides
fiduciary and consulting services, with its principal place of
business located at 100 N. Barranca St., Suite 870, West Covina,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
         Telephone: (856) 324-8219
         Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
         E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

                 - and –

         Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
         Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 463-2101
         Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
         E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                 rjenny@baileyglasser.com

QUALVOICE LLC: Frederick Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALVOICE LLC, and RODNEY NEDD, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02689 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated cable installers and
technicians for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and failing to furnish proper a wage notice.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a cable
installer/technician from April 6, 2020 through the present.

Qualvoice LLC is a company that operates a cable installation and
repair business, with its principal place of business located at
360 Bloomfield Avenue, Windsor, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
         STEVENSON MARINO LLP
         75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 939-7229

REPRO-MED SYSTEM: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (d/b/a KORU Medical Systems) ("KORU" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD). Such investors are advised to contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext.
7980.

The investigation concerns whether KORU and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its
third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales
declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During an earnings call the
next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among other
things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain customers"
and "payment discounts and distribution fees."

On this news, KORU's stock price fell $1.97 per share, or 32%, to
close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020.

Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced
its preliminary financial results for fiscal year 2020, expecting
revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over
the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other
things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of
strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In
the press release, KORU also announced the resignation of its Chief
Executive Officer, Donald Pettigrew, effective immediately.

On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 15.5%, to
close at $4.33 per share on January 26, 2021.

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


RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Resideo Technologies, Inc. (the "Company" or "Resideo") (NYSE:
REZI) against certain of its officers. On March 30, 2021, Judge
Wilhelmina M. Wright granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
Resideo and certain of its officers.

According to the class action lawsuit, between October 29, 2018,
and November 6, 2019, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the negative
operational effects of the Honeywell spin-off were more substantial
and persistent than disclosed and had negatively affected the
Company's product sales, supply chain, and gross margins, putting
Resideo's fiscal 2019 financial forecasts at risk; (2) as a
consequence, the Company's financial guidance lacked a reasonable
basis and the Company was not on track to make its fiscal 2019
guidance as defendants had claimed; and (3) as a result, according
to the class action lawsuit, Resideo's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the class action lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Resideo holding
shares since October 2018, you may have standing to hold Resideo
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the Company's executives
by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to
assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent
future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you have continuously owned Resideo's shares since
October 2018, you can [Click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


REVCO SOLUTIONS: Suarez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revco Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugenio Suarez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Revco Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-21677-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2021).

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

Revco Solutions -- https://revcosolutions.com/ -- was founded in
1979 and is the region's premier provider of fast, hassle-free,
professional debt recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                 mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: matthew@fight13.com


RICE AND NOODLES: Faces Ixtos Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRUZ AJQUI IXTOS, DOMINGO CUX COTIY, FRANCISCO GUARCHAJ, ISAIAS
LOPEZ, MELESIO CHOX GUARCHAJ, VICTOR PASCUAL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICE AND
NOODLES INC. D/B/A PHO HOUSE BAYTOWN, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01546 (S.D. Tex., May 11, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated employees minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt employees at Pho House Baytown
restaurant in Texas.

Rice and Noodles Inc. is an owner and operator of Pho House
Baytown, with its principal place of business located in Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
         KENNARD LAW P.C.
         5120 Woodway Dr., Suite 10010
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 742-0900
         Facsimile: (832) 558-9412
         E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

                - and –

         Cristabel Jimenez, Esq.
         KENNARD LAW P.C.
         5120 Woodway Dr., Suite 10010
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 742-0900
         Facsimile: (832) 558-9412
         E-mail: Cristabel.jimenez@kennardlaw.com

ROBERT A. BAFFERT: Beychok Sues Over RICO Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Beychok, Justin Wunderler, Michael Meegan, and Keith
Mauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ROBERT A. BAFFERT, BOB BAFFERT RACING STABLES, INC., and ZEDAN
RACING STABLES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-04045 (C.D. Cal., May 13,
2021), is brought against the Defendant Baffert for violations of
(i) the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"); and (ii) the California Control of Profits of Organized
Crime Act; and against the Defendants Baffert and Zedan Racing for
state common law and equitable fraud.

The complaint alleges that Baffert's multiple and repeated acts of
illegally doping and entering horses into thoroughbred races in the
State of California and elsewhere constituted a pattern of
racketeering activity within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code as he
has committed at least two incidents of criminal profiteering
within a ten-year period which are related and, as a result of his
continued involvement in thoroughbred racing, pose a threat of
continuing criminal activity extending indefinitely into the
future. The Plaintiffs' claims also involve conspiracies between
Baffert and other owners and or trainers to commit the described
acts to engage in illegal gambling and/or horse doping through a
pattern of racketeering activity.

The Baffert Defendants and the Defendant Zedan Racing further
engaged in common law and equitable fraud in that Defendants
misrepresented to bettors that they (1) entered a horse that
complied with the race track rules; (2) that the misrepresentation
was material because pari-mutuel wagering cannot function without
fairness and administering a banned substance to a horse is
antithetical to the spirit of fair competition; (3) Defendants knew
or believed that their representation was false; (4) Defendants
intended that bettors such as Plaintiffs would rely on their
misrepresentation to induce them to make wagers, as a track's purse
structure comes directly from the total amount that is bet by the
public; (5) Plaintiffs and the Class relied on these
misrepresentations; and (6) Plaintiffs and the Class were damaged
by Defendants' misrepresentations through the loss of their bets
and winnings, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are part-time, pari-mutuel thoroughbred racing
bettors.

Robert A. Baffert resides and conducts much of his business, Bob
Baffert Racing Stables, Inc., in or around Los Angeles County,
California and is a licensed horse trainer of horses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Emrah M. Sumer
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Ste. 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Phone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel P. Markoff, Esq.
          ATKINS MARKOFF ADLER LAW FIRM
          9211 Lake Hefner Parkway, Ste. 104
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 607-8757
          Facsimile: (405) 607-8749


ROCHESTER, NY: Suit Seeks to Stop Violence Against People of Color
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HALL, et al., on behalf of themselves and other people
similarly situated v. LOVELY ANN WARREN, et al., Case No.
6:21-cv-06296-FPG (W.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) is a lawsuit that calls
on the Court to fulfill its most fundamental role which is to
protect and defend the Constitution.

The Plaintiffs bring this suit to end the Rochester Police
Department's (RPD's) decades-long use of violent, unconstitutional
force -- before more lives, more Black and brown lives, are lost.
The need for meaningful change in the RPD is real and for people of
color in Rochester, it could not be more urgent, the Plaintiffs
contend.

The Plaintiffs allege that for decades, Rochester City officials
have responded with deliberate indifference to this problem. By
failing to meaningfully train, supervise, and discipline officers
who use excessive force and instead suppressing evidence of officer
misconduct and attacking critics of the department, the City has
fostered a culture of violence and impunity in its ranks, the
Plaintiffs add.

The Plaintiffs include STANLEY MARTIN, NICHOLAS ROBERTSON, DEVORAH
CHATMAN, REYNALDO DEGUZMAN, EMILY GOOD, WINONA MILLER, DYNASTY
BUGGS, LORE MCSPADDEN-WALKER, EMILY MCINTYRE, FREE THE PEOPLE ROC,
and NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD ROCHESTER, INC.

The Defendants include LA'RON SINGLETARY, CYNTHIA
HERRIOTT-SULLIVAN, HENRY C. FAVOR, RAYMOND W. DEARCOP, RALPH
MONTINARELLI, SAMUEL LUCYSHYN, RANDY POTUCK, WILLIAM BAKER,
ALEXANDER ELMORE, JOHN CLINKHAMMER, DOMENIC BORRELLI, MATTHEW
DRAKE, DAKOTA VANBREDERODE, ETHAN PASZKO "JOHN DOE" ROCHESTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS 1–200 (the names and numbers of which
are currently unknown), ADAM BELLO, TODD BAXTER, THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, COUNTY OF MONROE, "RICHARD ROE" MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPUTIES 1–200 (the names and numbers of which are currently
unknown), STEPHEN A. DELLASALA, "SALLY SUE" NEW YORK STATE POLICE
OFFICERS 1–200 (the names and numbers of which are currently
unknown).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elliot D. Shields, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          ROTH & ROTH, LLP
          192 Lexington A venue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 425-1020
          E-mail: eshields@rothandrothlaw.com

               - and -

          Nick Brutin, Esq.
          Katie Mkarthy, Esq.
          NEUFELD SCHECK & BRUSTIN, LLP
          99 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 965-9081
          E-mail: katie@nsbcivilrights.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Moskovitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA MOSKOVI
          14 Wall Street, Suite 1603
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 380-7040
          E-mail: josh@moskovitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Ivory L. Bishop, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Martino, Esq.
          Ivory L. Bishop, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          E-mail: ibishop@bakeilaw.com

               - and -

          Donald Thompson, Esq.
          EASTON THOMPSON KASPEREK SHIFFRIN LLP
          The Powers Building
          16 West Main Street, Suite 243
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 423-8290
          E-mail: dmthompson@etksdefense.com

ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Ingram Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON INGRAM and STEVEN
DUNLAP, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees, v. ROCORE
KNOXVILLE, LLC, ROCORE THERMAL SYSTEMS, LLC and KELVION, INC. a/k/a
KELVION COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00423-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. authorizing their claims to proceed as a Fair Labor
Standards
      Act (FLSA) collective action for overtime violations;

   2. directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
      Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable file containing the
      names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last

      known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of
      employment and last known telephone numbers of all putative
      class members;

   3. providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with all of

      the Defendants' currently employed putative class members’

      next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, be prominently posted

      at the facilities where putative class members work, and be
      mailed and emailed to the putative class members so that they

      can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this
      litigation;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as

      of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and

   5. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms
      be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

Rocore Knoxville design and manufactures heat transfer products.
The Company produces brass and aluminum radiators, coolers, and
tubes for power generation, construction, marine, and agricultural
industries.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uUmw0t at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

ROMANOFF FLOOR: Court OKs $1.375MM Settlement in Bailey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BAILEY and JOSE
CARRASCO JR., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. ROMANOFF FLOOR COVERING, INC., Corporation;
and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-00685-TLN-DMC
(E.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order
that:

   1. The Plaintiffs Jonathan Bailey and Jose Carrasco, Jr. are
      confirmed as Class Representatives.

   2. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, LLP, by and through
      Lead Counsel Norman Blumenthal, Kyle Nordrehaug, and Aparajit

      Bhowmik are confirmed as Class Counsel.

   3. CPT Group, Inc. is confirmed as Settlement Administrator.

   4. final certification of the Class is appropriate under Rule 23

      and hereby granted, for settlement purposes only,
      certification of the Class consisting of the California Class

      and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Class, as defined:

      The California Class is defined as:

      "all individuals who worked for the Defendant in California
      as non-exempt employees from March 30, up to and through May

      1, 2018 (the California Class);" and

      The FCRA Class is defined as:

      "all prospective employees for whom the Defendant procured a

      background check during the time period of March 30, 2012 to

      April 5, 2017, which is comprised of FCRA Class Members who
      received an FCRA form within the 2-year statutory period of
      FCRA and FCRA Class Members who received an FCRA form within

      the 5-year statutory period of FCRA but outside of the 2-year

      statutory period of FCRA (the FCRA Class).

   5. The all-inclusive Gross Settlement Amount in the maximum
      amount of $1,375,000 and the Settlement Shares to be paid to

      the Participating Class Members as provided for by the
      Settlement are fair and reasonable.

   6. The request by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel as to the Class
      Representative Service Payments and the attorneys' fees and
      costs pursuant to the Settlement Agreement are fair and
      reasonable.

   7. The payment of each Plaintiff is $10,000, for the Class
      Representative Service Payments, $343,750 for attorneys' fees

      to Class Counsel, and $15,000 for reimbursement of costs to
      Class Counsel, to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount

      in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

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

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Final OK of Washing Machine Suit Deal Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. JERRY WELLS, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BEST BUY CO., INC.; THE HOME DEPOT,
INC.; LOWE'S HOME CENTER, LLC; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD, Defendants-Appellees, and SEARS HOLDING
CORPORATION, Defendant. JOHN DOUGLAS MORGAN, Objector-Appellant.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALASKA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF INDIANA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
Amici Curiae, Case No. 20-6097 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's orders
granting final class certification, granting final approval to the
Settlement Agreement, and awarding the class counsel attorneys'
fees and costs.

In 2015, consumers owning Samsung top-load washing machines
experienced issues with the top-load door detaching mid-cycle.
Litigation ensued across the country, with the cases consolidated
into the multidistrict litigation underlying the appeal.  Over the
course of several months, and with the assistance of a mediator,
the class counsel and the Defendants negotiated a Settlement
Agreement that provided class members five forms of relief.
Valuing the Settlement Agreement at between $6.55 million and
$11.42 million and finding that certain aspects of the Agreement
provided the average claimant greater compensation than damages
provable at trial, the district court, over John Douglas Morgan's
objection, granted final class certification and final approval to
the settlement.

Essential to Mr. Morgan's objections is the Settlement Agreement's
inclusion of a "kicker" agreement and a "clear-sailing" agreement
relative to the award of attorneys' fees and costs.  Under the
"kicker" agreement, Samsung retained the difference between the
maximum permissible attorneys' fees and costs award of $6.55
million and the amount actually awarded by the district court.  Mr.
Morgan further argues that under the "clear-sailing" agreement,
Samsung agreed not to contest any request by class counsel for
attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6.55 million.

Attempting to resolve his objections, Mr. Morgan and Samsung sought
to negotiate a side agreement providing for the possible
distribution to the class of a portion of the difference between
the $6.55 million maximum permissible attorneys' fees and costs,
and the actual amount awarded by the district court.  Ratification
of this side agreement, however, never occurred, with Mr. Morgan
walking away based on his purported fear that class counsel might
sue him and his counsel if he and Samsung finalized the side
agreement.

Instead of seeking the maximum award of $6.55 million, the class
counsel sought an attorneys' fees and costs award of just under
$6.25 million.  Scrutinizing the billing records submitted by the
class counsel and acknowledging the existence of the "kicker" and
"clear-sailing" agreements in the Settlement Agreement, the
district court awarded the class counsel a reduced amount of just
over $3.8 million.  As a result of this reward falling well below
the maximum permissible amount of $6.55 million, Samsung was able
to retain money that likely would have been distributed to the
class had Mr. Morgan and Samsung finalized the side agreement.

On appeal, Mr. Morgan advances three arguments: (1) the district
court made clear errors of fact regarding settlement negotiations
and the side agreement; (2) the district court abused its
discretion by granting final approval to the Settlement Agreement
where it included both a "kicker" and a "clear-sailing" agreement;
and (3) the district court abused its discretion by granting final
class certification and allowing class counsel to continue in its
role after class counsel placed its interests ahead of the class'
interests.

The Tenth Circuit holds that a district court must apply heightened
scrutiny before approving a settlement that includes both a
"kicker" agreement and a "clear-sailing" agreement.  But its
reviews of the record give it confidence the district court did
just that.  And although the district court made one clear error in
its fact-finding process, the Tenth Circuit concludes the error was
harmless to its ultimate decisions regarding final class
certification, final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and its
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Therefore, Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's orders
granting final class certification, granting final approval to the
Settlement Agreement, and awarding the class counsel attorneys'
fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4fkfmj88 from Leagle.com.

Theodore H. Frank -- ted.frank@hlli.org -- Hamilton Lincoln Law
Institute, Center for Class Action Fairness, in Washington, D.C.,
for Objector-Appellant John Douglas Morgan.

John P. Elwood -- john.elwood@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC (R. Stanton Jones --
stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com -- and Anthony J. Franze --
anthony.franze@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP, Washington, DC, and Arthur E. Brown and Elie Salamon, Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, in New York City, with him on the brief),
for Defendants-Appellees.

Samuel Issacharoff -- samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu -- New York, New
York (William B. Federman -- WBF@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- Federman &
Sherwood, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with him on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kate B. Sawyer, Assistant Solicitor General (Mark Brnovich,
Attorney General, with her on the brief), Office of the Arizona
Attorney General, in Phoenix, Arizona, for Amici Curiae.


SANTA ROSA, CA: Reaches $1.9MM Settlement With Injured Protesters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
cbslocal.com reports that city officials have announced a $1.9
million settlement, ending a lawsuit brought by five people who
said they were injured by tear gas and projectiles used to break up
last summer's George Floyd protests.

Marqus Martinez and Michaela Staggs, who were seriously injured,
originally asked the court to make their lawsuit a class action.
The settlement, which the city announced, involves Martinez, Staggs
and three other plaintiffs.

Oakland Resumes 'Bulky Block Party' Trash Disposal Events To Stem
Illegal Dumping
U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chabria found in August that police
may have violated the protesters' rights to free speech and to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizure, as provided by the
First and Fourth Amendments.

In a November ruling that allowed the case to continue, however,
Chabria dismissed the plaintiffs' free-speech claims.

He distinguished the case from more common ones alleging
"misconduct against one or two citizens" and said the city was more
likely to be liable in this case because the claims stemmed from
police activities during three days of protests.

Santa Rosa Mayor Chris Rogers told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat
that the City Council approved the settlement in closed session
after a legal briefing and watching related body-worn camera
footage.

"I think (the community) will see that the city is trying to own up
to what they didn't do well," Rogers told the paper of the
settlement. "Now it's time to have a conversation about policy
reforms."

The settlement was approved in closed session on April 20

The injuries occurred in the first few days after Floyd was killed
last May by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who
was convicted last month of murder and manslaughter charges.

Martinez and Staggs said in the lawsuit that they were protesting
peacefully and filming police when officers fired non-lethal
projectiles at them. Staggs was struck just over her left eye,
leaving a wound that required several stitches to close. Martinez
underwent several facial surgeries as a result of his injuries.

Three other plaintiffs later joined the lawsuit.

A report reviewing how the city's police department responded to
the first wave of protests criticized officers' use of non-lethal
projectiles, one of which struck a protester in the groin, severely
injuring him. That protester settled a different lawsuit with the
city for $200,000.

"There were no defined rules of engagement; officers were left to
their own individual subjective determinations of when to engage
civilians with force, which is wildly unconstitutional," said Izaak
Schwaiger, an attorney representing the five people who sued.

Police Chief Rainer Navarro declined to comment about the
settlement. He acknowledged his department made mistakes in its
response to the protests.

"Did we make errors? Yes, we did," Navarro said. "But we have
committed to correcting everything we can to ensure that those
don't happen again. We are committed to this process." [GN]



SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Barkus Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE BARKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00585 (E.D. Wis., May 10, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee in Brookfield, Wisconsin in approximately July 2019.

SmileDirectClub, LLC is a teledentistry company headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

SNAP INC: Faces Bride Suit Over Creation of Unsafe Messaging Apps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of CARSON BRIDE by and through his appointed
administrator, KRISTIN BRIDE, and TYLER CLEMENTI FOUNDATION, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SNAP, INC., YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LIGHTSPACE, INC., DOES
#1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03473 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for strict liability,
negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
California Business and Professional Code and the New York General
Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' development, maintenance, and
marketing of Snapchat, YOLO, and LMK messaging applications that
are inherently dangerous and unsafe. Due to the Defendants' apps'
defective design and their misrepresentations, millions of users
are harmed daily, suffering permanent consequences, including
Carson Bride, a 16-year-old teenager who took his own life after
being a victim of cyberbullying on the said mobile apps. This
action demands that the Defendants be held accountable for the
wrongful deaths, personal injuries, and other losses that Carson
Bride and his family have suffered as a result of the Defendants'
defective and dangerously designed apps, the suit alleges.

Snap, Inc. is an American camera and social media company based in
Santa Monica, California.

Yolo Technologies, Inc. is a mobile application developer with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles,
California.

LightSpace, Inc. is a mobile application developer with its
principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Juyoun Han, Esq.
         Eric Baum, Esq.
         EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
         24 Union Square East, PH
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 353-8700
         Facsimile: (212) 353-1708
         E-mail: jhan@eandblaw.com
                 ebaum@eandblaw.com

               - and –
         
         John K. Buche, Esq.
         BUCHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         875 Prospect St., Suite 305
         La Jolla, CA 92037
         Telephone: (858) 459-9111
         Facsimile: (858) 430-2426
         E-mail: jbuche@buchelaw.com

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Court Issues Protective Order in Britt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Alks Sagar of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued a Protective Order in the
case, SHARON BRITT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; and DOES
1 through 25, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-08023-FMO (ASx) (C.D.
Cal.).

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to
enter the Stipulated Protective Order.  It is the intent of the
parties that information will not be designated as confidential for
tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good
faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential,
non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be
part of the public record of the case.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge.  The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment therein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.  Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are
entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion
papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal
memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert
reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work
product, even if such materials contain Protected Material.  Any
such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material
remain subject to the Protective Order as set forth in Section 4.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Protective Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sssc8ywv from Leagle.com.

ROBERT S. BLUMBERG -- rblumberg@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON,
P.C., Los Angeles,

DEMERY RYAN -- dryan@littler.com -- ALEXANDRA BERNSTEIN --
abernstein@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY Counsel of Record for Plaintiff on the Following Page

Jonathan M. Lebe -- Jon@lebelaw.com -- Annaliz Loera, Lebe Law,
APLC, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Sharon
Britt, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated


STAT TRANSCRIPTION: EBFC Class Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC B. FROMER
CHIROPRACTIC, INC., v. STAT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-10916-DML-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson
entered an order dismissing plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed
contemporaneously with its complaint on April 23, 2021. In its
motion, the plaintiff asserts that it was filed as a prophylactic
measure to prevent any attempt by the defendant to scuttle this
prospective class litigation by making a preemptive offer of
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 that fully
addressed the named plaintiff's prayer for relief.

The plaintiff asserts that despite the settled case law that
forecloses such attempts by defendants to "pick off" individual
claims and avoid class litigation, the motion was filed from "an
abundance of caution." The motion offers no developed argument in
support of the request for class certification and presents only a
token effort at addressing the relevant factors under Rule 23.
There also is no apparent need for this motion to "remain pending,"
as the plaintiff asks, during the preliminary stages of this case.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S.
153 (2016), fully addressed the plaintiff’s concerns about the
hazard posed by an attempted "pick off" offer. The Court finds that
the class certification issues raised in the motion more
appropriately may be addressed at a later stage of the proceedings,
after the pleadings have been served, preliminary class-related
discovery has been completed, and the parties have had an
opportunity to meet, confer, and attempt to reach an agreement on
the scope of the putative class. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). The
Court therefore will dismiss the plaintiff’s motion without
prejudice to refiling at a later appropriate date.

STAT provides transcription services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ygm2nG at no extra charge.[CC]


TOUITOU INC: Alcazar Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touitou Inc. The case
is styled as Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Touitou Inc. doing business as: A.P.C., a New
York corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-03591-JSW (N.D. Cal., May 13,
2021).

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

Touitou, Inc. -- https://www.apc-us.com/ -- was founded in 1992.
The company's line of business includes the retail sale of men's
and boys ready-to-wear clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


TUFF SHED: Drews Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tuff Shed, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Howard Drews, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tuff Shed, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Does
1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00300020-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 3, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil - Unlimited."

Tuff Shed Inc. -- https://www.tuffshed.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and installer of storage buildings and garages in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Fax: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Under Appeal in 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit related to user settings is currently on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

In December 2020, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims.

The case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


TWITTER INC: Trial in California Consolidated Suit Set for Sept. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that trial in the
consolidated shareholder class action is scheduled on September 20,
2021.  

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action.

In January 2021, the Company entered into a binding agreement to
settle the pending shareholder derivative lawsuits. The proposed
settlement resolves all claims asserted against the Company and the
other named defendants in the derivative lawsuits without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or the
Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company's board of
directors will adopt and implement certain corporate governance
modifications. In addition, the Company will receive $38.0 million
of insurance proceeds to be used for general corporate purposes.

The settlement will not require the Company to make any payment,
aside from covering certain administrative costs related to the
settlement.

On March 19, 2021, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
held an approval hearing on the settlement at which it requested
additional information as part of the approval process; the parties
submitted such information on April 14, 2021.

The shareholder class action remains pending and is scheduled for
trial on September 20, 2021.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Carranza Class Suit v. ICE Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANKLIN GOMEZ CARRANZA, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED
STATES IMMIGRATION and CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-CV-424 KG/KRS (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Kevin R.
Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
recommended that:

    (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of
        jurisdiction be granted; and

    ii) the Plaintiffs' Motions to Certify Class and for
        Preliminary Injunction be denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs are immigration detainees who were held in the Otero
County and El Paso Processing Centers while they had removal
proceedings pending in El Paso Immigration Court.  They claim they
did not have adequate access to free, confidential phone calls with
attorneys at the processing centers.

The Plaintiffs seek to bring a class action on behalf of themselves
and "all current and future adult immigration detained persons who
are or will be held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody
in El Paso or Otero and to obtain an order from the Court enjoining
the policies, practices, and omissions that are preventing
Plaintiffs from realizing their constitutional, statutory, and
regulatory rights, including the promise of due process in
immigration proceedings."

Since the filing of their Complaint, both the Plaintiffs have been
released from the processing centers.  Nevertheless, the Defendants
concede the Plaintiffs' claims are not moot because the case is
filed as a putative class action.

The Plaintiffs assert three claims:

     1. Violation of their right to representation of counsel
contrary to the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, 8 U.S.C.
Sections 1362 and 1229a(b)(4)(A), 5 U.S.C. Section 555(b), and 8
C.F.R. Sections 1003.16(b) and 1292.5(b);

     2. Violation of their right to full and fair hearings contrary
to the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and 8 U.S.C. Sections
1229a(b)(4)(B) and 1226(a); and

      3. Violation of their First Amendment right to petition the
government for redress of grievances.

For relief, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to:
(1) comply with the Performance-Based National Detention Standards
("PBNDS"); (2) provide free, confidential legal phone calls, and
reasonably accommodate non-legal calls for detainees who are
indigent; (3) establish an adequate process for immigration
attorneys to schedule legal calls; (4) provide private,
unmonitored, unrecorded calls with attorneys; (5) provide a quiet
place for legal calls and calls that do not have poor sound
quality; (6) provide the opportunity to penetrate automated
voicemail trees and leave voicemails when making legal calls; (7)
provide notice of communication options available to detainees; and
(8) accommodate non-English speakers, illiterate detainees, and
detainees with hearing and speech disabilities that impact their
access to legal calls.

The Plaintiffs also move for certification of a class and for
preliminary injunction as to all of the relief sought in their
Complaint.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs claims for three
reasons: First, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs lack standing
to bring claims relating to injuries they have not personally
suffered.  Second, they  contend the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims under 8 U.S.C. Section
1252(b)(9) because they arise from the Plaintiffs' removal
proceedings and, thus, may only be reviewed by the Board of
Immigration Appeals and the courts of appeals.  And third, the
Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims because they
failed to allege prejudice as a result of the Defendants' actions.

Discussion

A. Right to Counsel

The Plaintiffs' first claim is that the Defendants violated their
right to counsel contrary to the Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause, 8 U.S.C. Sections 1362 and 1229a(b)(4)(A), 5 U.S.C. Section
555(b), and 8 C.F.R. Sections 1003.16(b) and 1292.5(b).  The
Defendants argue this claim is barred under Section 1252(b)(9)
because it is tied to the Plaintiffs' removal proceedings.  The
Plaintiffs respond that this claim does not arise from their
removal proceedings but, instead, "arises from the Defendants'
policies and practices regarding telephone access in El Paso and
Otero -- a condition of confinement that unduly interferes with
access to counsel and leads to prolonged detention."

Judge Sweazea finds that Section 1252(b)(9) applies to the
Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel claim.  As articulated in their
Complaint, the Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel claim "is part and
parcel of the removal proceeding itself," and ignoring the
channeling provisions of Section 1252(b)(9) in the case "would
result in precisely the type of fragmented litigation that Congress
sought to forbid."  Because the Plaintiffs' claim is based on
access to counsel for their removal proceedings, they are
challenging "part of the process by which their removability will
be determined."  Therefore, Section 1252(b)(9) channels their
claims to the review process before the courts of appeals.  This
includes the Plaintiffs' challenges to the facilities' policies and
procedures regarding phone access because Plaintiffs' allegations
are linked to Plaintiffs' removal proceedings.  The Plaintiffs'
attempt to bring a class action does not change this outcome
because they cannot raise claims on behalf of potential class
members that they themselves cannot assert.

Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel claim brought
under the Fifth Amendment and immigration statutes because it
arises from their removal proceedings and is thus barred by Section
1252(b)(9).  In addition, the Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel claim
under the Administrative Procedure Act fails because they have only
asserted claims relating to their immigration proceedings, and
"immigration proceedings are not governed by the APA."  The Judge,
therefore, recommends dismissing the Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel
claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

B. Right to Full and Fair Hearings

Next, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim that the
Defendants have violated their right to full and fair hearings
contrary to the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and 8 U.S.C.
Sections 1229a(b)(4)(B) and 1226(a).  This claim asserts that the
Defendants have violated the Plaintiffs' right to a full and fair
hearing by denying and severely restricting their ability to make
telephone calls to gather information and obtain evidence in
support of their immigration cases.

As with the Plaintiffs' right-to-counsel claim, Judge Sweazea finds
that this claim is inextricably linked to their removal
proceedings.  Section 1252(b)(9)'s jurisdictional bar extends to
claims relating to the process by which immigrations detainees'
removability will be determined.  Accordingly, several courts have
found Section 1252(b)(9) bars district court jurisdiction over
similar claims alleging infringement to detainees' right to full
and fair hearings.  The Judge, therefore, finds that Section
1252(b)(9) bars jurisdiction for the Plaintiffs' right to full and
fair hearings claim because it arises from their removal
proceedings, and he recommends this claim be dismissed without
prejudice.

C. Right to Petition the Government

Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third claim
that the Defendants violated their First Amendment right to
petition the government for redress of grievances.  The Plaintiffs
do not respond to this portion of the Motion to Dismiss.

Several courts have held that immigrants have a First Amendment
right to petition for asylum.  Nevertheless, this claim is
inextricably linked to the Plaintiffs' removal proceedings and the
Plaintiffs do not allege that their right-to-petition claim relates
to any other proceeding.  Accordingly, Judge Sweazea finds that
Section 1252(b)(9)'s jurisdictional bar applies to the Plaintiffs'
First Amendment claim and recommends this claim be dismissed
without prejudice.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sweazea finds the Court does not
have jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Section 1252(b)(9).  He therefore recommends that the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss be granted and the Plaintiffs' claims be
dismissed without prejudice.  He further recommends that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion for
Preliminary Injunction be denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Order Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/5afwta77 from
Leagle.com.


US STEEL: Discovery in Shareholder Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the shareholder class action suit related to the
company's August 2016 secondary public offering.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The underlying consolidated class
action lawsuit alleges that U. S. Steel, certain current and former
officers, an upper level manager of the Company and the financial
underwriters who participated in the August 2016 secondary public
offering of the Company's common stock violated federal securities
laws in making false statements and/or failing to discover and
disclose material information regarding the financial condition of
the Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained.

The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On
September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting them
in part and denying them in part.

On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the
Defendants related to the 2016 secondary offering.

As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case.

The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims.

On December 31, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the proceeding as a class action.

The Company's appeal of that decision has been denied by the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and the class has been notified.

Discovery is proceeding.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled, U.S.
Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products. United States Steel was
founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


USALLIANCE FEDERAL: Acevedo Sues Over Improper Charging of OD Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USALLIANCE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
d/b/a USALLIANCE FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-04142
(S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for breach of contract and violations of New York General Business
Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of improperly
charging overdraft (OD) fees on the debit card transactions of its
customers, including the Plaintiff, or also referred as Authorize
Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative (APPSN) transactions. The
Defendant's action breaches its adhesion contracts with customers
since the checking account contract documents covering OD fees
promise that USAlliance will only charge OD fees on transactions
that have insufficient funds to cover that debit card transaction.
USAlliance is not authorized by contract to charge OD fees on
transactions that have not overdrawn an account, but it has done so
and continues to do so, the suit alleges.

USAlliance Federal Credit Union, doing business as USAlliance
Financial, is a company that provides retail banking services, with
its headquarters in Rye, Westchester County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:   
                                                                   
                 
         Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.                 
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095
         Telephone: (732) 636-8000
         Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
         E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
         Sophia Gold, Esq.
         KALIEL GOLD PLLC
         1100 15th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com

                 - and –

         Taras Kick, Esq.
         THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
         815 Moraga Drive
         Los Angeles, CA 90049
         Telephone: (310) 395-2988
         E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com

USC: Sex Abuse Payout Leaves Bitterness, Vast Disparities
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hamilton and Harriet Ryan at The Latin American Herald reports
that two women, both Asian Americans raised in Southern California,
enrolled in USC graduate programs a few years apart. Both went to
the student health clinic for gynecological care and both ended up
in an exam room with Dr. George Tyndall. Both later said they were
sexually assaulted by the doctor, and struggled for years afterward
to trust men and medical professionals.

When it came time for USC to compensate them for their injuries,
however, their stories diverged sharply. Lucy Chi, a 2014 graduate
who works in healthcare information technology, reached a
settlement expected to total about $1.2 million. The other alumna,
an Orange County mother, was awarded less than $200,000.

"I am sad for my kids," the second woman said recently through
tears. "I made the wrong decision."

USC's $1.1 billion settlements to about 17,000 former patients of
Tyndall was the largest sex-abuse payout in education history.
Behind the jaw-dropping numbers, however, lies a lopsided economic
landscape that has left some exuberant and others feeling bruised
and cheated.

It is the result of a novel approach USC and its lawyers took to
compensate alumnae treated by the gynecologist. A year and a half
ago, those former patients had to make a choice between two legal
pathways. All were eligible for a federal class-action settlement
promoted by USC and several law firms, but they could opt out of
the class settlement and gamble on individual lawsuits in state
Superior Court. More than 700 women pursued the second option.

It is now clear that from a strictly financial perspective, these
risk takers fared significantly better. USC agreed in March to pay
$852 million to 710 women with pending lawsuits, resulting in an
average payout of more than a million dollars each. The class
action settlement prescribed awards of only up to $250,000,
depending on an individual's willingness to share their experience
and how settlement administrators assessed the extent of their
injuries.

Plaintiffs routinely collect different amounts from the same
organization for similar injuries, but experts said the difference
in the two groups of Tyndall patients was unusual and surprising.

"I'm really struggling to think of a situation where the highest
paid members . . . were 10 times higher than a very similar
settlement that was reached in the same 12- to 24-month period,"
said Loyola Law School professor Adam Zimmerman, who teaches
complex litigation and served as counsel to the special master for
the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund.

In that case, there were disparities too, but much smaller. The
$7-billion fund created by Congress paid an average of $2.1 million
to relatives of the deceased. Families who opted out of the fund
and pursued individual lawsuits eventually secured settlements that
averaged about $5 million.

In the USC cases, some angry class-action participants are now
consulting attorneys about potential legal malpractice claims. They
feel that, as with Tyndall's gynecological exams, their lack of
expertise put them at a disadvantage. Some said they didn't
understand the legal decision before them; others acknowledged
making a strategic error. Most spoke on the condition of
anonymity.

"Seeing the headlines . . . it just sucks," said one class-action
plaintiff awarded $170,000, adding, "I have nothing against the
women who are getting more. I think they deserved that. I just
think we also deserve that."

A similar dynamic could play out at UCLA. The university has agreed
to a $73 million class-action settlement to former patients of Dr.
James Heaps, an obstetrician and gynecologist accused of assaulting
and harassing patients. Those women must decide whether to
participate or pursue their own litigation against UCLA by May 6.

USC was inundated with lawsuits after revelations in 2018 that
Tyndall, the sole full-time gynecologist at the campus clinic, had
been kept on staff despite complaints. Those reports included
allegations he had made suggestive remarks about patients' bodies,
asked prurient questions about their sexual histories, targeted
Asian women, touched genitals inappropriately and took unnecessary
photos during exams.

Tyndall has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to pending sex
crimes charges.

                      Sex Abuse Scandal

USC retained the prominent law firm Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart &
Sullivan to look for ways to quickly settle as many claims as
possible. Sex abuse scandals have proved a reputational and
financial nightmare for organizations like the Catholic Church and
Boy Scouts of America. Both continue to face wave after wave of
lawsuits, leading to uncertain costs and unending headlines that
erode the institutions' standing.

Within weeks of the first Tyndall lawsuit, the Quinn Emanuel
lawyers approached attorneys who had filed cases in federal court
in hopes of reaching a deal.

These law firms, including San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser and
Seattle-based Hagens Berman, entered into secret negotiations with
USC on behalf of not just the clients they had signed up, but all
the women who received gynecologic care from Tyndall between 1989
and 2016.

The negotiations in the summer of 2018 were unprecedented in scope,
with more than 100 participants crammed into three floors of Quinn
Emanuel's L.A. office. Among them were representatives from 25
university insurance carriers, USC's in-house lawyers and business
staff, several plaintiffs' firms and a retired judge, Layn
Phillips, as mediator.

USC and the firms reached an agreement in October 2018 that would
pay all former patients a total of $215 million. Later, Quinn
Emanuel would crow in marketing materials that its lawyers
"orchestrated" a "novel and unprecedented" settlement.

At the time of the negotiations, prominent universities were paying
much larger amounts to sexual abuse victims than provided for under
the class action. Michigan State, for example, agreed a few months
before talks began to pay $425 million to compensate 332 patients
of Dr. Larry Nassar - an average award of about $1.3 million.

USC's settlement was different in that it included every female
patient treated by Tyndall - even those who had favorable
experiences or did not remember the appointments at all. The
majority would have likely never sued, but wrapping them into the
settlement guaranteed they never could.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, who would receive up to $25 million for
fees and costs, told U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson that the
settlement was "not only fair, reasonable and adequate, but an
outstanding result."

Wilson approved the settlement. It was finalized without the
class-action attorneys conducting depositions in which USC
administrators and other witnesses would have testified about their
knowledge of Tyndall's misconduct. The university's own internal
investigation into Tyndall was still ongoing and its findings were
not available for review, though USC did share some records with
the law firms.

                       A USC Doctor Accused

Chi, the healthcare IT professional, had been a client of Hagens
Berman, but she said she had misgivings about the firm even before
negotiations started. After she fully understood that she was the
only named plaintiff on the initial class-action lawsuit, she
switched lawyers and said in an interview that the $215-million
agreement undervalued the women's trauma.

"I feel like they were negotiating on USC's behalf, instead of the
victims' and survivors' behalf," Chi said.

Hagens Berman partner Steve Berman responded that Chi received a
copy of the lawsuit before it was filed and the document clearly
indicated she was the only plaintiff.

"For sure you can find one or two that now see the payout in the
other case and are dissatisfied. But we fully disclosed that
possibility to all class members," Berman said in the email.


All former patients were enrolled automatically in the class-action
settlement, but anyone could opt out and press a lawsuit in state
court. This dynamic created a schism with the university and the
class-action lawyers on one side and attorneys ready to pursue
state court lawsuits on the other.

Those state court attorneys, caught off guard by the class-action
settlement, furiously attacked it as a USC cover-up that would
shortchange victims.

"If you are in favor of secrecy about sexual assault and in favor
of protecting sexual abusers, this is a great day for you," Irvine
attorney John Manly said hours after the announcement of the
class-action settlement.

The lawyers' ire was partly financial: They stood to gain about
one-third of any state court settlements and nothing from the
class-action.

University leaders said women should choose the best path for
themselves, but they touted the class-action's benefits. Unlike in
individual lawsuits, the settlement was completely private. No one
would have to testify in open court.

The settlement also offered the certainty of a financial award,
with different tiers of payments depending on how much each woman
wanted to participate. If a woman did nothing, she would receive
$2,500. If she agreed to a confidential interview describing
Tyndall's impact on her life, she would get up to $250,000. On the
other hand, if the women sued, there was no guarantee of money.
Their cases might be thrown out or rejected by juries.

USC and the class-action lawyers also pointed to nonmonetary
provisions in the settlement that aimed to reform university
culture: USC had to hire a women's health advocate, perform
enhanced background checks for staff, and institute a new sexual
misconduct prevention program for students.

"People who have been victims of sexual misconduct and abuse, one
of the things they want more than anything is for this to not
happen to anyone else," said Charol Shakeshaft, an educational
researcher appointed the women's health advocate.

Women had about a year to decide which route to choose. For many,
the class-action's expediency was attractive.

"I didn't want it to become my life," said one class-action
plaintiff who was later awarded $30,000. Her 2013 experience with
Tyndall was unpleasant, she said, but had little long-term impact
on her. "If my experience had been more extensive ... yeah, I would
have joined the lawsuit, but I feel like I was fortunately on the
outskirts of what happened."

Claire Cahoon, an attorney who received her undergraduate degree
from USC in 2017, said the class-action was "a no-brainer" for her
because it was "more streamlined" and wouldn't require her to
submit to adversarial questioning.

"I didn't want it to be about me. I wanted it to be about him and
about USC," Cahoon said. She declined to say the amount of her
award, but described it as "significant" and more than she
expected. Even after learning about the massive state court
settlement, she said, she had no regrets. "It made me really happy
for those women," she added.

Those who now regret staying in the class-action offered various
explanations for the decision they now second-guess. The Orange
County mother said she "fell for a rumor" that USC's insurer was
going to go bankrupt if the settlement went above the $215 million
set aside for the class-action.

Another alumna ultimately awarded $150,000 said that as the first
in her family to attend college, she knew few people with the legal
savvy to advise her. She thought only a handful of women would take
the step of filing suit, not the hundreds who ultimately did.

"I didn't realize," she said. "It wasn't that I was scared to go to
court or face Dr. Tyndall, I would have done that."

Another said she was unfamiliar with a proper gynecology exam and
initially thought her experience was probably not bad enough to
merit a suit. During the class-action interview, she began to
understand how Tyndall had violated her.

"Someone in this situation took advantage of my lack of knowledge
and having that happen again when that is exactly what he did to
all of us - take advantage of our not knowing - does not feel like
justice at all," said the woman, who was awarded $170,000.

Annika Martin, one of the lead attorneys for the class-action, said
the feedback on the settlement from former patients had been
"overwhelmingly positive."

"Obviously I'm sorry to hear that anyone is unhappy," Martin said.
She rejected the idea that the class-action participants did not
have enough information or legal acumen to choose wisely.

"All of these women are intelligent, educated women who are more
than capable of making the right decision and informed choices
based on the personal reasons that are right for them," Martin said
in an interview.

She said it was unfair to judge the settlements by the payouts
alone since the class-action deal delivered privacy, certainty and
campus reform, adding, "It is not the apples to apples comparison
that your question seems to be presenting."

Shon Morgan, a Quinn Emanuel partner who led USC's defense, said it
was logical that women who took USC to court on their own ended up
with higher payouts.

"I would suspect that the people who tended toward the individual
litigation were the group who had the most unfavorable experience
with Dr. Tyndall and therefore it is not unexpected you would see
higher awards to that group," Morgan said.

What is clear is that USC's lawyers believed the class-action
settlement was a prudent financial move for the university.
Morgan's law firm biography now boasts that the settlement resolved
"the class actions at a small fraction of the per-plaintiff amount
that other institutions have paid in similar cases."

The state court cases against USC took just under three years to
resolve. About 15 women were deposed as were USC administrators and
one trustee. There were rounds of settlement negotiations and it
wasn't until March 25 that the sides announced the $852 million
price tag, which brought USC's total bill to a record-setting $1.1
billion.

At least a third of the state court settlement - approximately $300
million - is expected to go into the pockets of plaintiff's
attorneys. By contrast, USC will pay the plaintiffs' legal fees and
costs in the class action and they cannot exceed $25 million.

Though lawyers for the state court cases had criticized the lack of
transparency in the class action, their settlement does not require
USC to make public internal files or deposition transcripts, which
remain confidential.

        How years of alleged sex abuse was uncovered at USC

In a recent interview, USC trustees Chair Rick Caruso praised the
class-action settlement as an important option for women who wanted
an "easier, less impactful" way to secure recompense.

"The decision we made was the right decision to give people a path
to be compensated," Caruso said.

In an apparent coincidence, many of the women in the class action
settlement learned the amount of their individual payout in the
week after news broke of USC's state court settlement. The average
for women who participated in the highest tier was $96,000 - less
than a tenth of the state court average.

Dolores Leal, a partner at Allred, Maroko & Goldberg who
represented 72 patients in individual lawsuits, said she has
received many calls from unhappy class-action plaintiffs. Some said
their attorneys did not inform them of the 2019 law that
temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for sex abuse cases
so that people with dated claims could sue.

"A lot of these women decided to pursue the class action because
they thought they wouldn't get anything and their case would be
thrown out," said Leal.

Leal and other attorneys are interviewing prospective clients about
a potential legal malpractice claim against the class-action
lawyers.

Martin, the class-action lawyer, said a website for Tyndall's
former patients was updated to reflect the change to the statute of
limitations and that some class participants had even lobbied for
the legal change. She also said that USC alums were besieged with
advertising by lawyers seeking to take on individual lawsuits after
the statute of limitations changed.

The Orange County mother said she had coped with trauma over
Tyndall by focusing on what the eventual financial award would do
for her young children. "You think to yourself maybe this will pay
for my kids' college," she said. Now, racked with regret, she said,
"One thing I had been hoping for is to get closure, and what I
don't have is closure." [GN]


VIRGINIA: New Overtime Law Authorizes Collective Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia employers are at increased risk of class action wage
litigation following passage of the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.

"Previously, Virginia had been content to rely on the overtime pay
requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)," note
Kristina H. Vaquera and Shaun M. Bennett in a recent Jackson Lewis
legal alert discussing the new statute, which Governor Ralph
Northam signed into law on March 31, 2021. Like the FLSA, the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act obligates employers to pay one and
one-half times an employee's regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Also like the FLSA: Beginning July
1, 2021, employees will be entitled to pursue state-law overtime
claims as collective actions.

Virginia law typically does not authorize class or collective
actions. However, there are exceptions, and the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act is now one of them. Amendments to existing sections of the
Virginia Code accompanying the new law authorize collective actions
"consistent with the collective action procedures of the Fair Labor
Standards Act" for violations under the Virginia Overtime Wage
Act.

In addition, the Virginia law departs from the FLSA in several
important, employee-friendly ways, including a lengthier
limitations period to bring potential claims (three years is the
default liability period), and the availability of greater damages.
(The Virginia law also differs from the FLSA in how the regular
rate of pay is calculated.) The bottom line is that Virginia
employers face the possibility of defending overtime claims of
multiple employees in a collective lawsuit covering workweeks up to
a three-year period.

The Virginia Overtime Wage Act creates the potential for
significant liability to employers that fail to properly classify
and compensate their employees. Employers operating in the state
should review their overtime pay practices to ensure compliance
with both the FLSA and the new Virginia law.

The detailed discussion of the Virginia law can be found at
https://bit.ly/3wjm4cG. [GN]



VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
thefashionlaw.com reports that a number of brands teased consumers
this year for April Fool's Day, with Tiffany & Co. pretending to
replace its world-famous Robin's Egg Blue hue with a new yellow
"house color;" Lego teasing some "Smart Bricks" technology, a nod
to the unpleasant experience of stepping on its plastic bricks in
bare feet; cheese company Velveeta announcing a skincare
collection; and vegetable company Green Giant revealing a
"collaboration" with marshmallow candy brand Peeps. At the same
time, Volkswagen played a trick of its own, asserting in a
statement that it would rebrand to "Voltswagen of America."
Volkswagen's stunt - which came a couple of days before April 1 -
is unlike the previously mentioned ones, though, in that it has
landed the American arm of the German automaker in court.

On the heels of media reports that Volkswagen's rebranding
announcement - which "drew massive media coverage," per Reuters -
was merely "a marketing stunt aimed at drawing attention to the
company's electric vehicle plans," and an attempt to "have some
humor" and "to celebrate our profound focus on electrification,"
according to Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWoA") CEO Scott
Keogh, the car company's American subsidiary has been hit with a
class action lawsuit over the stunt. As Rosen Law Firm announced,
as first reported by Law360, it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Volkswagen AG between
March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, seeking to seeks to "recover
damages for Volkswagen investors under the federal securities
laws."

According to the complaint, which was filed in a California federal
court and names VW shareholder Gerald Montag as the lead plaintiff,
Volkswagen is on the hook for making "false and/or misleading
statements and/or fail[ing] to disclose" that "(1) 'Volkswagen' was
never going to be used by the Volkswagen, VWoA or on any relevant
vehicle; (2) Volkswagen, VWoA, and their spokespeople purposefully
misled reporters regarding the now-purported 'joke' and/or
'promotion;' and (3) as a result, [their] public statements and
statements to journalists were materially false and/or misleading
at all relevant times."

As a result of the news of headline-making rebrand that would never
come to be, Montag claims that Volkswagen caused the shares in its
Frankfurt Stock Exchange-traded parent company Volkswagen Group to
rise artificially. As Reuters reported, "At least one analyst wrote
a research note praising the name change, [while] VW's preferred
shares, common shares and ADRs rose on the day of the phony name
announcement." In a subsequently-released note, Morgan Stanley
stated that "the stock market clearly seemed to like [the name
change] with VW shares up around 5 percent after the false
announcement." The note went on to assert that "it is an
interesting commentary on the state of the industry that such a
communication, which VW admitted was meant to be a joke, was taken
so seriously."

Montag argues in the complaint that "when the true details entered
the market," the company's share price fell, thereby, causing
"investors to suffer damages."

More than merely a target of a class action case, Volkswagen is
also coming under the microscope of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), with Reuters revealing on that the
government agency "has opened an inquiry into the U.S. unit of
Volkswagen's AG over the marketing stunt," although neither
Volkswagen nor the SEC have confirmed the probe.

The case is Montag v. Volkswagen AG et al, 2:21-cv-03678 (C.D.Cal.)
[GN]



WALNUT BREWERY: Mann Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARVIN MANN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALNUT BREWERY, INC., a Colorado
corporation doing business as Rock Bottom Brewery; SPB HOSPITALITY,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV377897, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-03500 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of
pay, failure to indemnify, non-compliant wage statements, waiting
time penalties, failure to maintain accurate employment records,
and unfair competition.

Walnut Brewery, Inc. is an American brewery restaurant with its
principal place of business in Colorado.

SPB Hospitality, LLC is a casual brewery restaurant with its
principal place of business in Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Adam I. Miller, Esq.
         Corey A. Miller, Esq.
         MILLER MILLER GERBER LLP
         18301 Von Karman Avenue, Ste. 950
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (714) 450-3800
         Facsimile: (714) 450-3801
         E-mail: amiller@mmg-llp.com

                - and -

         John Tishler, Esq.
         Aron Z. Karabel, Esq.
         Flynne M. Dowdy, Esq.
         WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
         511 Union Street, Suite 2700
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Telephone: (615) 850-8729
         Facsimile: (615) 850-6804
         E-mail: john.tishler@wallerlaw.com
                 aron.karabel@wallerlaw.com
                 flynne.dowdy@wallerlaw.com

WESTFIELD NATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss M&E Bakery Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M&E BAKERY HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A BITTERSWEET and
BLOWTIQUE, LLC, Plaintiffs v. WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 20 C 5849 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Westfield's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' complaint.

The Plaintiffs in the case are two Chicago-based businesses --
Bittersweet, a pastry shop and cafe, and Blowtique, a salon that
offers hair and makeup services.  They purchased commercial
property insurance from the Defendant.  The insurance poliycies
provided coverage to Bittersweet from Nov. 11, 2019, to Nov. 11,
2020, and to Blowtique from Feb. 1, 2020, to Feb. 1, 2021.

On March 20, 2020, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, through an
executive order, suspended operations of non-essential businesses
due to the coronavirus pandemic.  City of Chicago Mayor Lori
Lightfoot issued similar orders based on her emergency powers.

The Plaintiffs complied with these orders and contend that they
lost business income as a result of suspending their operations in
Chicago.  They filed claims under their insurance policies to
recover for those losses, but Westfield denied the claims.  The
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit seeking to recover amounts they
contend are due under various policy provisions.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that their losses are
insured under the "business income" and "civil authority"
provisions in their insurance policies; they seek a declaratory
judgment that their claims are covered.  They also assert claims
for breach of contract based on Westfield's denial of coverage
under these same provisions and contend that Westfield is subject
to a statutory penalty for bad faith denial of coverage.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs assert two claims on behalf of a
putative class of those similarly situated, alleging unjust
enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).

Westfield has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It argues that the "business
income" and "civil authority" provisions -- which are identical and
included in both plaintiffs' insurance policies -- do not cover the
Plaintiffs' alleged losses and that an exclusion for losses caused
by a virus precludes coverage.

Discussion

A. Coverage-related claim

Judge Kennelly notes that the virus exclusion in Westfield's
insurance policy is substantially similar to the provision at issue
in another case this Court recently decided.  In Dental Experts,
LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., No. 20 C 5887, 2021 WL 1722781,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2021) (Kennelly, J.), the Court concluded
that the "virus exclusion is plain and unambiguous: it excludes
loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus."

In the instant case, Westfield's policy provides that it excludes
loss "caused directly or indirectly by any virus that induces or is
capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease."  Judge
Kennelly concludes that the virus exclusion unambiguously excludes
claims for the loss of business income indirectly caused by a virus
. As such, the Plaintiffs' argument that the closure orders, not
the coronavirus, caused their loss of business income, lacks merit:
The closure orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Thus the loss of income was an indirect result of the coronavirus
and is therefore excluded from coverage.  In Dental Experts, the
Court rejected an argument by the insured that is indistinguishable
from the one the Plaintiffs make.

Judge Kennelly also concludes that the Plaintiffs' claim in count 2
-- that Westfield breached the insurance contracts when it denied
them coverage under the business income and civil authority
provisions -- lacks merit.  The same is true of the claim in count
1 that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that
their losses are insured under the policies.  The Judge dismisses
these claims with prejudice, without leave to amend, because
amendment would be futile given the terms of the virus exclusion.

In count 3 of their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Westfield
is subject to a statutory penalty under 215 Ill. Comp. Stat.
5/154.6 and additional relief under 215 Ill.  Section 155 provides
a remedy to "insureds who encounter unnecessary difficulties
resulting from an insurance company's unreasonable and vexatious
refusal to honor its contract with the insured."  But "when an
insurer denies the claim of an insured because no coverage exists,
the insurer has not failed to honor its contractual obligations
under an insurance policy."  "As such, Illinois courts allow a
cause of action to proceed under Section 155 only if the insurer
owed the insured benefits under the terms of the policy."

In the case, as in Dental Experts, LLC, "the 'virus exclusion' in
the insurance policy undercuts" the Plaintiffs' claim that
Westfield unjustifiably denied them coverage based on the business
income and civil authority provisions.  The Judge therefore
dismisses count 3 with prejudice.

B. Alternative class action claims

The Plaintiffs assert two class action claims on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated businesses insured by Westfield.
In count 4, they contend that Westfield was unjustly enriched
because Westfield "has continued to charge and accept full premium
payments as if their insureds' properties remained fully functional
and operational."  To state a claim for unjust enrichment under
Illinois law, a plaintiff must allege that the "defendant has
unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff's detriment and the
defendant's retention of the benefit violates the fundamental
principles of justice, equity, and good conscience."  Although
Illinois law (like federal procedural rules) does not foreclose
pleading in the alternative, a plaintiff "may not include
allegations of an express contract which governs the relationship
of the parties, in the count for unjust enrichment."

In the case, the factual allegations underlying the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim inescapably concern a contractual dispute
-- Westfield's denial of insurance coverage and its retention of
the premiums paid for the insurance.  Because the claim is premised
upon a contractual relationship, it cannot proceed.  Moreover, the
Plaintiffs attempt to get around the applicable law by suggesting
that their unjust enrichment claim sounds in tort and not contract,
see id., but it is clear from the complaint that their factual
allegations entirely concern the parties' obligations under the
insurance contracts; their unjust enrichment claim is thus
undeniably "premised on a failure to fulfill contractual terms.

In count 5, the Plaintiffs say that Westfield violated the ICFA,
815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1.  Specifically, they contend that
Westfield's "retention and collection of full and
undiscounted/unrebated premiums" despite "not taking on
commensurate risk in supporting those premiums" from businesses
affected by closures, "are deceptive and unfair acts or practices
prohibited by ICFA."

To state a claim under the ICFA, the plaintiff must allege "(1) a
deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant's
intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence
of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or
commerce, and (4) actual damages to the plaintiff (5) proximately
caused by the deception."

Judge Kennelly holds that the Plaintiffs' ICFA claim "is nothing
more than an allegation of breach of contract dressed up in
Consumer Fraud Act clothing."  Illinois law is clear: "A breach of
contractual promise, without more, is not actionable under the
Consumer Fraud Act."  For these reasons, the Judge dismisses the
Plaintiffs' ICFA claim.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kennelly grants Westfield's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.  Unless the Plaintiffs file,
by May 21, 2021, a motion for leave to amend that attaches an
amended complaint that states a viable claim, the Judge will enter
judgment against them.  The case is set for a telephonic status
hearing on May 28, 2021 at 9:45 a.m., using call-in number
888-684-8852, access code 746-1053.  The counsel should wait for
the case to be called before announcing themselves.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3twmvt5e from
Leagle.com.


WHITE PINES: De Sa FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONIQUE DE SA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHITE PINES, INC. dba L.A.'S NIGHT CLUB aka L.A.'S GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB, a Virginia Corporation; KENNY EDWARDS, an individual; DOE
MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00086-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
to enter an order:

   1. allowing conditional certification of a collective in this
      matter pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

      Act;

   2. allowing notice of this action to be sent to dancers who
      have performed at the defendants' club; and

   3. allowing tolling of the statute of limitations during the
      notice period.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ht6kzq at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
          David A.C. Long, Esq.
          MEYER B ALDWIN LONG & MOORE LLP
          5600 Grove Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 285-3888
          Facsimile: (804) 285-7779
          E-mail: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
                  davidaclong@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas Michael Lucas, Esq.
          Shaun Michael Bennett, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          500 E. Main St., Suite 800
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 648-1445
          Facsimile: (757) 648-1418
          E-mail: thomas.lucas@jacksonlewis.com
                  shaun.bennett@jacksonlewis.com

WP OPERATIONS: Clements Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MITCHELL CLEMENTS on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WP
OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01051-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for certification of a
class action against Defendant, and to authorize and order that
notice be sent to members of the following class:

   "All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant,
WP
   Operations, LLC, between December 26, 2017 and December 26, 2019

   in the State of Wisconsin in the positions of Belt Press
   Operator, Dry Plant Operator, Loadout Operator, Maintenance
   Electrician, Maintenance Technician, Mine Utility, Plant Loader

   Operator, Plant Utility Operator, Quality Control Lead, Quality

   Control Technician, Rail Operator, and Wet Plant Operator, who
   utilized Defendant's electronic timekeeping system, Orbit
   Solutions, to track or record their hours worked."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

XEROX CORP: Ribbe Asks Court for Attorneys' Fees & Service Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that plaintiff in the
previously dismissed Ribbe I and XCCSL actions, filed a motion
seeking an award of attorneys' fees of $1.5 and a service award of
$10 thousand for benefits he allegedly obtained for Xerox and its
stockholders.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard,
Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas
Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey
Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince,
Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara
Martinez Tucker.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018 ("Ribbe I").

The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the
Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle
shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox,
its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (Fujifilm) in
connection with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018 to
combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction"), including a
consolidated putative class action, In re Xerox Corporation
Consolidated Shareholder Litigation ("XCCSL"), and actions filed by
Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason
v. Xerox Corporation, et al., against the same defendants as well
as, in the first Deason action, former Xerox Chief Executive
Officer Ursula M. Burns (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder
Lawsuits").

Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleged that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities against the defendants for causing Xerox to enter into the
Deason and XCCSL settlements, which plaintiff alleged perpetuated
control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason and denied the voting
franchise of Xerox shareholders. Among other things, plaintiff
sought damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged fiduciary
breaches in favor of Xerox against defendants jointly and
severally; rescission or reformation of the Deason and XCCSL
settlements; restitution of funds paid to the resigning directors
under the Deason settlement; an injunction against defendants'
engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and equitable relief
affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to determine the
composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees; and other
further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019.

On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand.

On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and adjourned
sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to
dismiss the complaint.

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations regarding
the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well as
additional allegations, including, among others, that the members
of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated plaintiff's
demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to pursue the
claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement announced in
November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by Xerox of its
interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of Fujifilm's
breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox, was unfavorable to Xerox;
and allegations about a potential acquisition by Xerox of HP
similar to those in the Miami Firefighters derivative action.

In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership and asserts claims against those defendants and
the Board similar to those in Miami Firefighters relating to the
Icahn defendants' purchases of HP stock allegedly with knowledge of
material nonpublic information concerning Xerox's potential
acquisition of HP. In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's
prior complaint, the FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in
Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged
purchases of HP stock.

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe. At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the
Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice.

On March 6, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
renewed its motion. On July 23, 2020, after hearing oral argument,
the Court issued an order denying the motion and setting certain
case deadlines.

Discovery commenced. On August 7, 2020, Xerox, the director
defendants, and the Icahn defendants filed separate motions to
dismiss. On October 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross-motion
seeking, among other relief, joinder of Xerox Holdings Corporation
as a nominal defendant. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and
plaintiff's cross-motion was completed on October 16, 2020.

On December 14, 2020, following oral argument, the Court issued a
decision and order denying plaintiff's cross-motion and granting
defendants' motions, dismissing the action in its entirety as to
all defendants.

Dismissal as to the Icahn defendants was conditioned on the filing
of an affidavit, which the Icahn defendants filed on December 16,
2020, indicating whether defendant Icahn gained a profit or
incurred a loss on purchases of HP stock during the relevant time
period.

On January 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
December 14, 2020 dismissal order to the Appellate Division, First
Department.

On April 7, 2021, plaintiff filed in the previously dismissed Ribbe
I and XCCSL actions a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees of
$1.5 and a service award of $10 thousand for benefits he allegedly
obtained for Xerox and its stockholders.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter.

Xerox  said, "At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation. Should developments cause a change in our determination
as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment
or settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XPRESS RESTORATION: Underpays Technicians, Santamaria Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMMY SANTAMARIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XPRESS RESTORATION INC. and JOSE
MORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21802 (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated technicians overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked as a technician for the Defendants throughout
Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties from January 2020 to
December 2020.

Xpress Restoration Inc. is a provider of emergency response in
restoration, cleanup, and repair of a wide variety of property
disasters, doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Keith M. Stern, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
         80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 901-1379
         Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
         E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com

ZARA USA: Gillett Employee Class Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATRELL GILLETT,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ZARA
USA, INC. and INDITEX USA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03734-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification, but solely as to hourly employees who worked
      for the Defendants at any time from May 14, 2017, to July 1,

      2019;

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      language of the proposed notices and the selection of an
      independent administrator;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs to file the revised proposed notices

      within 14 days from the date of the Opinion. If Defendants
      still have objections, they may file objections within seven

      days from the date of Plaintiffs' submission;

   4. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      selection of an independent administrator to distribute
      notice to the putative class;

   5. directing the parties to inform the Court of any agreement
      and/or outstanding objections as to this issue no later than

      14 days from the date of the Opinion; and

   6. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff, in a
computer-
      readable format, with the names, last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and  
      dates of employment for employees within the putative class
      within 14 days of the date of the Opinion.

The Court finds production of all of the requested information,
excepting the social security numbers, to be appropriate. The
Plaintiffs' request for pre-certification discovery, in accordance
with this Opinion, is granted. The Plaintiffs request the
production of this information on an "expedited" basis, but do not
specify a timeframe. Because Plaintiffs do not specify a date for
the requested "expedited" production, and because Defendants do not
object to this request, the Court orders that the material
authorized above be produced within 14 days from the date of the
Opinion. The Plaintiffs Latrell Gillett, Alex Swinton, and Royale
Adams bring this action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), against
the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to
compensate hourly workers at the appropriate overtime rate for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week; failed to pay spread of
hours compensation under the NYLL; failed to compensate employees
on a timely basis; and failed to provide proper wage notices and
statements under the NYLL.

The Plaintiff Gillett was employed as an hourly worker by
Defendants at two different New York City-area Zara stores, from
around March 2018 to August 16 or 17, 2019, as a "stock associate."
The Plaintiff Swinton was employed by Defendants at four New York
City-area Zara stores from 2015 through at least September 14,
2020, generally as a "sales associate," although he was
occasionally "assigned the position of cashier or stock associate."
Plaintiff Adams was employed by Defendants at three New York
City-area Zara stores from 2015 through at least September 12,
2020, generally as a "cashier," although he was occasionally
"assigned the duties of sales associate or stock associate."

Zara USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells apparel and fashion
products.

A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated May 3, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hweh7c at no
extra charge.[CC]

ZOOM VIDEO: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Company Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: ZM) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
announces that a class action complaint was filed against ZM
alleging that ZM had inadequate data privacy and security measures
contrary to ZM's assertions, and as a result of all the foregoing,
users of Zoom's communications services were at an increased risk
of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized
parties.

If you are a Zoom investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.  The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.,
1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780.  Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone:  516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]




                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***