---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 20, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 95

                            Headlines

A.V.M. ENTERPRISES: Gorss Motels Appeals Rulings in TCPA Suit
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement with PCCRS Gets Final Approval
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zaidi Putative Class Action Underway
AIR METHODS: Bids for Summary Judgment in Scarlett Suit Granted
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Macomb Cty. ERS Appeals Securities Suit Dimissal

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Sues Over Monopoly of Aligner Products
AMAZON.COM: Court Vacates Class Cert. Deadline in Romanov Suit
AMICA MUTUAL: Partly Granted Protective Order in Gottlieb Suit
ANDERS GROUP: Swain Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 15
ARS NATIONAL: Faces Matthews Suit for Abusive Collection Practices

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Unit Continues to Defend Membrives Class Suit
AT&T SERVICES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Harrington FLSA Suit
BOINGO WIRELESS: Faces Normand Suit Over Merger w/ Digital Colony
BULLROCK LLC: West Suit Wins Class Certification Bid

CANAAN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline

CHSLD HERRON: Judge Approves Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Terminates Rhee Class Status Bid
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in De Lacour Suit
COLUMBIA GAS: Partly Compelled to Produce Docs in Parsons Suit

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Garrett-Evans Putative Class Suit Pending
COTY INC: Discovery in Cottage Holdco Tender Offer Suit Ongoing
COTY INC: Lewis Putative Class Action Underway
DELTA AIR: Court Stays Deadline on Bid to Certify Class

DFL PIZZA: Nagel Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
DRAPER & KRAMER: Scheduling Conference Continued to August 13
EAGLE BANCORP: Settlement Reached in New York Class Action
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EDWARD JONES: To Pay $34MM as Settlement of Bias Class Claims

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: USPC Bid for Class Certification Due May 24
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Deadline to Oppose Class Status Bid Vacated
FIBROGEN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FIRST INTERSTATE: Miller Sues Over Unlawful Charging Scheme

FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES: Richardson Seeks Bridge Mechanics' Unpaid OT
FOCUS FORWARD: Katz Appeals TCPA  Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
FPA VILLA DEL LAGO: Lawrence Suit Seeks Class Certification
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 15 Deadline

GATES CORP: Court Refuses to Approve Class Settlement in Lundine
GENERAL REVENUE: Goldberg Sues Over Misleading Debt's Amount Due
GENWORTH LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for March 9, 2022
HANBAT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Paguay et al. Say
HENDERSON, NV: May 21 Extension to Oppose Collective Action Sought

HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Junks Gatore Bid for Class Certification
HOMELAND SECURITY: Seeks Briefing Abeyance of Class Status Bid
HUDSON HALL: Court Junks Stewart Bid for Conditional Certification
INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Levine Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
INOVIO PHARMA: Discovery in McDermid Putative Class Suit Ongoing

INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Gatto Sues Over Fish Oil's False Labels
INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Preliminary Approval Hearing Date To Be Set
INTRUSION INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement in Davis Suit Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Garcia Files Amended Complaint

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perrone Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss NY Putative Class Suit Pending
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: New York Securities Class Suit Underway
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Dismissing Kemeny Suit Affirmed
LUCID MOTORS: Beeman Law Reminds Investors of June 18 Deadline

LYFT INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Haider Case to 2nd Cir.
MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Beck Complaint
MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
MDL 2670: Prelim. Approval of 3 Class Deals Denied as Premature
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lee et al. Sue Over Monopoly of DRAM Devices

MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT: Jimenez Seeks Blind People's Website Access
MY ENERGY: Mauger Sues Over Unpaid OT for Spray Foam Technicians
NATIONAL FREIGHT: NFI Can't Assert Counterclaims in Portillo Suit
NCAA: Liable to College Football Players' TBIs, Geerlings Claims
NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Dismissed

NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Maria
ORTHONET LLC: Class Settlement in Solis FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: WeissLaw Investigates Firm Over Breach Claims
PENNSYLVANIA: Dept. of Health Target of Medical Info Breach Suit

PINTEREST INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident Underway
PREMIER TOWING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Riddlehoover Claims
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kleinsasser Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
PTT LLC: Amazon's Rider to Protective Order in Wilson Suit Approved

RIDGEWOOD ALE: Ladino Seeks Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages & OT
ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Ingram Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
ROHR INC: Opposition to Morgan Class Certification Bid Due June 18
SAFRAN FOOD: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ocal Suit Says
SANTA MONICA REHAB: Valentine Gets Conditional Class Certification

SERVALL LLC: Hagye FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
SONY COMPUTER: Discusses PS5 Controller Drift Class Lawsuit Update
SONY COMPUTER: Faces Class-Action Over PlayStation Game Exclusivity
STATE AUTO: Cedarview Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 30
STATE FARM: Ritchie Sues Over Devaluing Vehicles Insurance Claims

STEVEN MATULIS: Judge OKs $23MM Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit
SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Appeals Ruling in Product Liability Suit
SUR TRANSPORTE: Faces Sotelo Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SWITCH INC: Wins State Court Securities Actions
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: ERS Hawaii Class Cert. Bid Pending

TMC RESTAURANT: 4th Cir. Affirms Partial Dismissal of Davis Suit
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Wins Dismissal of Amended Harris Class Complaint
TWO TOWNS: $246K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Winters Class Suit
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Cattle Antitrust Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Ongoing

TYSON FOODS: Discovery in Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
UMG RECORDINGS: Underpays Royalties to Artists, Marks Suit Says
UNITED AMERICAN: Parties Directed to File Case Status Update
UNITED STATES NAVY: Torres Must File Class Status Bid by June 18
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Accused of Gender Bias in Sport Programs

UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Johnson Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VERVENT INC: Seeks Continuance of Class Cert. Briefing Dates
VISA INC: Barry's Cut Suit Seeks Class Certification
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Nichols Brings Certiorari Petition to Sup. Court
WELLS FARGO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Bruno FLSA Class Suit

WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Junk Ferris Putative Class Action Pending
ZB NA: Evans Must File Class Certification Bid by May 23

                            *********

A.V.M. ENTERPRISES: Gorss Motels Appeals Rulings in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gorss Motels Inc. filed an appeal from court rulings
entered in the lawsuit entitled Gorss Motels Inc. v. A.V.M.
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-1078, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 9, 2021, Judge
Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted A.V.M.'s motion for summary judgment, and
denied Gorss Motels Inc. ("GMI")'s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff GMI brings the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA").  GMI alleges that Defendant A.V.M.
sent six unsolicited facsimile advertisements to GMI in violation
of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
September 10, 2019, denying its motion to certify class; Court's
Memorandum of Decision dated March 26, 2021, granting Defendants'
cross motions for summary judgment; and Court's Judgment dated
April 19, 2021, entered in favor of A.V.M. Enterprises, Inc.
against Gorss Motels Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels Inc. v. A.V.M.
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 21-1061, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 26, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com  

Defendant-Appellee A.V.M. Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation, is represented by:

          Erin A. Walsh, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN, LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894-3355
          E-mail: ewalsh@salawus.com

ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement with PCCRS Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement in the putative class action suit
initiated by Plymouth County Contributory Retirement System.

On May 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Plymouth
County Contributory Retirement System against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers
in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No.
RG19018715).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers for allegedly making false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus filed by the Company in
connection with its January 24, 2018, secondary public offering of
common stock.

On October 29, 2020, Adamas signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle this lawsuit for a payment of $7.5 million to eligible
settlement class members in resolution of claims asserted against
the Company, its officers, directors, and the other defendants.

The settlement will be paid by the Company's Director & Officer
liability insurance.

The Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiff's claims and deny any liability, but the Company agreed
to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the
costs and risks of further litigation, and to avoid further
distractions to management.

This settlement received final approval from the court on April 13,
2021.

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time-dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zaidi Putative Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Ali
Zaidi.

On December 10, 2019, another putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali
Zaidi against the Company and certain of the Company's current and
former directors and officers in federal court in the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051).

This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.

On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by
Patrick Van Camp in federal court in the Northern District of
California (Case No. 4:20-cv-01815) naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former directors and officers as
defendants.

This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. The Company is named as
a nominal defendant only.

On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed by James Druzbik in federal court in
the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-02320) naming
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers as defendants.

This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants
as the first derivative action.

The Company is named as a nominal defendant only. Other similar
cases may be filed in the future.

Adamas said, "In all of these actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. These actions are ongoing. The
Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to all
actions and intends to defend itself vigorously."

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time-dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


AIR METHODS: Bids for Summary Judgment in Scarlett Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY LEE SCARLETT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION and
ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No
16-cv-02723-RBJ, Consolidated Case No. 17-cv-00485, No.
17-cv-00502., 17-cv-00509, 17-cv-00667, 17-cv-791, 19-cv-01771,
19-cv-01951 (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado grants the Plaintiffs'
motions for summary judgment.

The matter is before the Court on remand from the Tenth Circuit,
which asked Judge Jackson t to address a single issue: Whether an
express or implied-in-fact contract exists between the parties.
The Defendants argue that there is, while the Plaintiffs argue that
there is not.

The case is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by Defendants Air
Methods and Rocky Mountain for medical transport by helicopter.
The Defendants provide helicopter transport to individuals that are
suffering from emergency medical conditions.  Both entities are
incorporated in Delaware.  Rocky Mountain owns Air Methods, and the
Defendants jointly collect all service fees.

There are two groups of Plaintiffs in the case.  The first group
("Cowen Plaintiffs") includes Randall and Ashley Cowen, who live in
Missouri; Lana and Grif Hughes, who also live in Missouri; Kenneth
Kranhold and Jonathan Armato, who live in Arizona; and Yolanda
O'Neale, who lives in Alabama.  The second group ("Dequasie
Plaintiffs") includes six individuals from Oklahoma: Richard
Dequasie, Dwain Patillo, Kathleen Pence, Kara Ridley, Sandra Saenz,
and Miranda Taylor.

The Defendants provide medical transport via helicopter to patients
experiencing medical emergencies.  They do not self-dispatch --
they only provide medical transport if a physician, qualified first
responder, or other qualified medical provider determines that air
transport is medically necessary and recommends that the patient be
air transported.

Because the Defendants are governed by the Emergency Medical
Treatment and Labor Act ("EMTALA") they are prohibited from
considering a patient's ability to pay prior to transport.
Instead, irrespective of a patient's ability to pay, they must
transport the patient if a physician deems it medically necessary.
The only circumstance in which transport is deemed medically
necessary but does not occur is when the patient refuses transport.
If a patient refuses transport, the patient must sign a document
that codifies that refusal and releases defendants from all
liability.

The Defendants require completion of three documents for each
patient: The authorization and consent form ("A&C"), the assignment
of benefits form ("AOB"), and the physicians' certification
statement ("PCS").  The PCS is completed by the doctor and confirms
that air transport is medically necessary.  The A&C is signed,
usually by a patient's family member, prior to transport.

Air Methods requires its employees to ensure that the A&C is signed
for every flight at the time of transport.  The Defendants
unilaterally set the price for their services and do not determine
price based on any health-related services provided by EMTs while
patients are in the ambulance. Instead, they use two numbers to
determine the cost of each flight.  These numbers differ depending
on where the flight occurs.  The first is the base charge or "lift
fee," which the Plaintiffs will be charged regardless of the number
of miles they travel.  he lift rate is around $30,000 across all
geographical areas related to the case.  The second is the mileage
rate, and this amount depends on the number of miles traveled.  The
mileage rate is approximately $300 per mile.  Following each
flight, Air Methods bills the patient for its services based on
these numbers.

Neither the A&C form nor any other document provided to patients or
their representatives prior to transport mentions the price or how
price will be determined. The Defendants and patients, patient
representatives, or healthcare providers do not negotiate the
service price or any of the terms in the A&C and AOB forms prior to
transport.  Patients are frequently unconscious at the time of
transport, and they are therefore physically unable to sign the A&C
form, much less haggle over its terms.  Furthermore, because Air
Methods responds to medical emergencies, time is of the essence,
and there would typically be no time to negotiate.  The financial
responsibility provision itself cannot quickly be edited by the
patients or their representatives at the time of signing.

The case was initially filed on Nov. 4, 2016.  In the subsequent
years several similar cases were filed in thes district against the
Defendants, and the Court consolidated the case with seven others.
On Aug. 21, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  The
Court granted the motion on May 25, 2018.

The Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and the Tenth Circuit
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part.  The
Tenth Circuit ordered the Court to consider a single issue on
remand—whether the parties entered into an express or implied
contract for defendants' emergency air transport services.

On Sept. 3, 2020 the Cowen Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the single issue before the Court.  The Defendants
filed their response on Oct. 13, 2020, and the Plaintiffs replied
on Nov. 10, 2020.

On Sept. 4, 2020, the Dequasie Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
summary judgment.  The Defendants responded on Oct. 13, 2020, and
the Plaintiffs replied on Nov. 10, 2020.

Both the Cowen and Dequasie Plaintiffs also filed motions to
certify a class.  The Defendants responded to both class
certification motions on Oct. 13, 2020.  The Cowen and Dequasie
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated reply on Nov. 10, 2015.

Analysis

With respect to both groups of Plaintiffs, the Defendants urge the
Court to accept the following scenario as legally reasonable: A
person suffers a life-threatening emergency that requires medical
air transport.  The person is either taken to a local hospital or
EMS arrives on the scene, and a healthcare provider determines that
it is medically necessary for the patient to be air lifted to
another hospital.  As the patient suffers through a medical
emergency, time is of the essence.  If the person is unconscious
and is not accompanied by a family member, then Air Methods signs
the A&C form and transports the patient.  If the individual is
accompanied by family members, then the family member is
effectively told "you must sign this form if you want your loved
one to get the care they need," and the person signs the form.
Neither the cost of the transport nor an opportunity to negotiate
is ever presented to either the patient or their family
representative.

Despite this, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have
entered into a contract the moment the Defendants begin to air lift
the patient, and that the contract requires the Plaintiffs to pay
any amount that the Defendants charge.  Thus, even though material
terms, such as price, are never discussed prior to transport, and
even though the contracting party may or may not be unconscious,
the Defendants insist that a contract has been formed.  Should the
Court accept their position, it would necessarily have to accept
that an incapacitated person is capable of entering into a
contract, or that a contract is possible without offer, acceptance,
or mutual assent.  From the outset, then, the Defendants position
directly contradicts the most basic of contract principles.

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs also urge the Court to adopt a
position that runs counter to common sense.  They ask the Court to
find that no express or implied-in-fact contract exists.  If the
Court rules this way, the outcome is that the Defendants do not
receive any compensation for the lifesaving transport they provided
to the Plaintiffs or their family members.

A. The Cowen Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

The Plaintiffs argue that no legally enforceable contract exists
because essential contract elements are missing.  The Defendants
argue that a reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiffs entered
into a valid contract -- either express or implied-in-fact -- for
four separate reasons.

First, the Defendants contend that there is sufficient evidence
that the Plaintiffs agreed to be bound by the contract.  Second,
they claim that the alleged contract was unilateral, and the
"Defendants' consent to contract is shown by their performance."
Third, they argue a jury could find in their favor because there is
sufficient evidence of consideration.  Fourth, and finally, the
Defendants claim that the lack of a final price term does not
preclude the jury from finding that a legally binding contract
exists.

As to whether there is sufficient evidence of agreement between the
parties, Judge Jackson finds that a contract is not valid without
mutual assent.  The Defendants heavily emphasize the financial
responsibility provision to support its position that the patients
manifested assent to the contract when they signed the A&C form.
But the evidentiary record does not support the conclusion that
there was a manifestation of mutual assent.

The Defendants' own representative admitted that who signs the A&C
form is immaterial, because it is the delivery of care, not the A&C
form, that actually forms the contract.  Mr. Kranhold and Mr.
Armato were unconscious at the time the A&C form was signed.  The
Cowens signed the A&C form at the request of medical professionals,
but they did not know what it entailed and were not under the
impression that it was a contract to pay any amount that defendants
deem reasonable.  Others -- the Hughes and Ms. O'Neale -- never
signed the A&C form. Instead, Air Methods' employees signed the
document for these patients.  The Judge will not accept that a form
often signed by defendants' employees -- and one that the
Defendants themselves admit does not create the contract -- can
bind the Plaintiffs to pay whatever amount the Defendants charge.

As to whether the alleged contract was unilateral, Judge Jackson
finds that the Defendants' argument that the contract is unilateral
is premised on the idea that the Plaintiffs -- some of whom were
unconscious -- made an offer to pay for their air transport
services that could only be accepted by the Defendants'
performance.  Interestingly, the Defendants do not address when or
how the Plaintiffs made this offer, nor do they cite to any
evidence in the record to support their conclusion that the
Plaintiffs made an offer.  After a review of the record in its
entirety, the Judge cannot find any evidence that suggests the
Plaintiffs made an offer that could only be accepted by
performance.  He is therefore not persuaded by the Defendants'
argument that a unilateral contract exists.

As to whether there is sufficient evidence of consideration, Judge
Jackson states that while the Defendants indisputably conferred a
benefit on plaintiffs, there is no evidence that any bargained-for
exchange took place.  The Plaintiffs did not bargain for anything.
Some were unconscious and woke up in a hospital in a different city
only to learn they had been air lifted there.  Others were told to
sign a standardized form that by its terms effectively precludes
signatories from amending it, as the Defendants themselves admit.
While it is true that time is of the essence in these emergency
medical situations, that fact does not alter the requirements of a
binding contract.  A binding contract requires consideration, and
valid consideration requires more than the conferral of a
benefit--there must be a bargained-for exchange.

Finally, as to whether lack of a final price term negates contract
formation, Judge Jackson finds that the Cowen Plaintiffs did not
enter into an express or implied-in-fact contract.  The Defendant's
own refusal to name a price rendered any potential agreement
invalid and unenforceable.  More importantly, the fact that the
Plaintiffs would have paid a price, potentially even a high price,
for the Defendants' services, does not alter contract law -- there
is still no enforceable contract if no certain price was
established.  The Judge therefore finds that no reasonable jury
could conclude that there is a material factual dispute as to
whether the Plaintiffs agreed to contract around the price term.

The Cowen Plaintiffs' motion is thus granted.

B. The Dequasie Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

The Dequasie Plaintiffs move for summary judgment against the
Defendants on three grounds: (1) the undisputed facts demonstrate
that any contracts which may exist between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants are correctly characterized as implied-in-law contracts,
and are therefore preempted and unenforceable under the Airline
Deregulation Act; (2) even if the Court finds that express or
implied-in-fact contracts exist, they are not enforceable; and (3)
if the Court finds that express or implied-in-fact contracts exist
and are enforceable, Oklahoma law compels a finding that the the
Defendants can only charge the Plaintiffs for the reasonable value
of services rendered.

The Defendants argue that the Dequasie Plaintiffs "offer a
confusing Motion untethered from the limits of the Tenth Circuit's
remand" because "the only remaining declaration pending before the
Court is whether any express or implied-in-fact contract exists
between the Defendants and the Dequasie Plaintiffs."

Judge Jackson agrees with the Defendants.  He can only determine
the existence or non-existence of a contract.  He cannot determine
a reasonable price for the Defendants' services.

The Judge holds that (i) the Defendants have not demonstrated a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Dequasie
Plaintiffs agreed to the contract; (ii) the Defendants have
presented no evidence that the Dequasie Plaintiffs presented them
with an offer that could only be accepted by performance; (iii)
there is not sufficient evidence of consideration to establish that
the Plaintiffs entered into contracts; and (iv) the lack of a price
term defeats any potential contracts.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson finds that no express or
implied-in-fact contracts exist between the parties and the
Dequasie Plaintiffs' motion is granted.

Order

Based on the foregoing, the Cowen Plaintiffs' and the Dequasie
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment are granted and their
motions to certify a class are moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39jnky5s from Leagle.com.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Macomb Cty. ERS Appeals Securities Suit Dimissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in IN RE ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-02897-MMC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Plaintiff alleges that between April 25, 2019, and July 24,
2019 ("the Class Period"), "[D]efendants repeatedly told investors
. . . that [Align's] sales growth of Invisalign, a set of
removable, plastic braces used 'to treat misaligned teeth,' in
China remained strong at levels of approximately 70 percent annual
growth as had been achieved in the prior two years," whereas,
according to Plaintiff, Defendants "knew, or were deliberately
reckless in disregarding, that Align's sales growth in China had
materially decreased to a range of 20 percent-30 percent." The
Plaintiff alleges that, on July 24, 2019, Align announced its
financial results for the second quarter of 2019 and "revealed"
that growth in China, during that period, "had plummeted."

Based on the allegations, the Plaintiff asserted three Claims for
Relief: (1) a claim alleging, as against Align, Hogan, and Morici,
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; (2) a claim alleging, as against Morici and Tay,
violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act; and (3) a claim
alleging, as against Hogan, Morici, and Tay, violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated March
29, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the
Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

The appellate case is captioned as Macomb County Employees'
Retirement System, et al v. Align Technology, Inc., et al., Case
No. 21-15823, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 6, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Macomb County Employees' Retirement System
Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 13, 2021;

   -- Appellant Macomb County Employees' Retirement System opening
brief is due on July 8, 2021;

   -- Appellees Align Technology, Inc., Joseph M. Hogan, John F.
Morici and Julie Tay answering brief is due on August 9, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Lead Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave.
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3033
          E-mail: pborkon@bfalaw.com  

               - and -

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          878 Oldfield Road, Suite 403
          Fairfield, CT 06824
          Telephone: (860) 869-5525
          E-mail: nkulesa@bfalaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH M. HOGAN, JOHN
F. MORICI, and JULIE TAY are represented by:

          Caz Hashemi, Esq.
          Nicholas Ryan Miller, Esq.
          Catherine E. Moreno, Esq.
          Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 320-4827
          E-mail: chashemi@wsgr.com
                  nmiller@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-7036
          Telephone: (206) 883-2617

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Sues Over Monopoly of Aligner Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MISTY SNOW, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-03269 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2021) challenges the
Defendant's alleged monopolization of the Aligner and Scanner
market, as well as violations of the Cartwright Act, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, and State Antitrust and
Restraint of Trade Laws.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons and
entities who have purchased Invisalign Aligners for personal use
sold by the Defendant from at least March 15, 2015 until the
present.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant terminated its agreement with 3Shape in order
to maintain and/or enhance its monopoly in the market for
Aligners;

     -- The Defendant allowed only its iTero Scanner to send scans
directly to the Defendant for Invisalign patients on commercially
reasonable terms, and prevented 3Shape's Trios Scanner and other
potentially competing Scanners from doing so;

     -- The Defendant implemented a policy that required dentists
who wish to prescribe Invisalign Aligners, but who do not use the
Defendant's iTero Scanner or another approved scanner, to create
manual casts of patients' teeth from a silicone mold, thereby
imposing a burdensome and inefficient alternative;

     -- The Defendant has been anticompetitive by refusing to
accept the standard file format used by other Aligner manufacturers
for Invisalign order, and by restricting the contract and
penalizing customers for dealing with rivals; and

     -- The Defendant has substantially foreclosed competition in
the markets for Aligners and/or Scanners, and has artificially
raised pries and reduced competition in the market for Aligners.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have suffered
damages in the form of overcharges paid for Invisalign Aligners.
Thus, they seek injunctive relief permanently enjoining and
restraining the Defendant from continuing, maintaining, or renewing
the conduct, conspiracy, or combination alleged and the sharing of
highly sensitive competitive information that permits individual
identification of company's information. The Plaintiff also seeks
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Align Technology, Inc. is medical device company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Tel: (510) 725-3000
          Fax: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: riop@hbsslaw.com


AMAZON.COM: Court Vacates Class Cert. Deadline in Romanov Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Luben Romanov v. Amazon.com
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02692-SB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr entered an order:

   1. vacating all remaining deadlines in this case, including the
      Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
      certification, effective upon finalization and execution of
      the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and

   2. setting a status conference for July 9, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. If

      the parties file the motion for preliminary approval by July

      1, 2021, the status conference will be vacated. In the event

      that the parties do not file the motion.

The Court has reviewed the parties' notice of settlement. The
parties have informed the Court that they have reached a settlement
on a class-wide basis, are preparing the MOU, and anticipate filing
a motion for preliminary approval within the next 90 days.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QvQkBD at no extra charge.[CC]

AMICA MUTUAL: Partly Granted Protective Order in Gottlieb Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER A. GOTTLIEB, Individually and on Behalf of All
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-10509-DJC (D. Mass.),
Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts grants in part Amica's motion for a
protective order.

Amica has moved prohibiting Plaintiff Gottlieb from (1) seeking
discovery regarding his dismissed claims; (2) seeking class
discovery; and (3) seeking discovery of information which is
unrelated to any allegation he has made in the complaint.

On Jan. 31, 2020, Gottlieb filed the putative class action in
Massachusetts Superior Court.  Amica removed the action to the
Court on March 12, 2020.  Gottlieb alleges that Amica has charged
him and other homeowners who are Amica insurance policyholders
excessive and unsupported premium increases based on purported
increases in reconstruction costs.

Gottlieb asserted five claims against Amica arising from Amica's
alleged excessive premium increases: (1) breach of contract; (2)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3)
unjust enrichment; (4) money had and received; and (5) unfair or
deceptive acts under M.G.L. c. 93A.

On Dec. 21, 2020, Judge Casper granted in part and denied in part
Amica's motion to dismiss.  Specifically, Judge Casper dismissed
the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims.  She dismissed the Chapter 93A claim
to the extent that it was based on the breach of contract and/or
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing but
allowed it to proceed only to the extent that it relied upon the
conduct underlying the unjust enrichment and money had and received
claims.

On Jan. 19, 2021, Judge Casper held a scheduling conference.
Gottlieb proposed an eight-and-a-half month discovery period for
the parties to conduct discovery on Gottlieb's individual and the
putative class claims.  Amica, on the other hand, proposed filing a
motion for summary judgment first.  Should Amica's motion for
summary judgment be denied, then it requested phased discovery with
a three-month period for discovery of Gottlieb's individual claim
first and, then, if necessary, a six-month period for class
discovery.

At the end of the scheduling conference, Judge Casper took the
matter under advisement.  On Jan. 22, 2021, Judge Casper entered
the following order: "Fact discovery will be completed by May 12,
2021.  Summary judgment motions must be filed by 6/12/2021 (and may
be filed before this date) and opposition will be due 21 days after
the motion is filed.  Status Conference set for 5/17/21 02:00 PM in
Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper."

On March 11, 2021, Gottlieb filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, which sought to change the proposed class from
Massachusetts residents only to residents of all fifty states.  He
also explained that the dismissed counts had been left in the
proposed amended complaint "to preserve and clarify the Plaintiff's
right in the event of any subsequent appeals."

Judge Casper allowed the motion for leave to file an amended
complaint over Amica's opposition, stating that she does not
conclude that the amendments would be futile (where Plaintiff has
noted that he has included Counts I and II only to preserve their
objection to the Court's dismissal of same for any appeal, and
these Counts will not be pressed in light of that dismissal) and
where the Court does not conclude that amendment at this time
prejudices the Defendant.

On March 29, 2021, Amica filed the instant motion.  Gottlieb filed
an opposition on April 9, 2021.  Judge Boal heard oral argument on
May 5, 2021.

Analysis

A. Standard of Review

Judge Boal holds that Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that a "court may, for good cause, issue an
order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden of expense" in connection with
discovery requests.  Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the
trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and
what degree of protection is required. As specified in Rule 26(c),
however, a showing of good cause is required to justify any
protective order.  The party seeking a protective order has the
burden of demonstrating good cause.

B. Gottlieb May Not Conduct Class Discovery Pending Resolution Of
Amica's Anticipated Motion For Summary Judgment

The Court has discretion to bifurcate the case so that discovery
and dispositive motions on Gottlieb's individual claims take place
before allowing discovery on class issues.  Indeed, Judge Boal
finds that Judge Casper's comments at the scheduling conference as
well as the scheduling order entered in the case indicate that she
has already determined that it is appropriate to proceed in this
manner in the case.  For example, she picked the shorter time
period for fact discovery consistent with Amica's proposal for the
Plaintiff discovery only.  Therefore, Judge Boal finds that
Gottlieb may not conduct class discovery at this stage.

C. Relevance

Amica argues that Gottlieb is not entitled to any discovery
regarding its dismissed contractual claims.

Judge Boal holds that Amica takes too narrow a view of relevance.
Though the contractual claims have been dismissed, there is overlap
in the factual allegations relevant to both dismissed and
non-dismissed claims.

Amica also argues that several of Gottlieb's discovery requests
seek irrelevant information because they are unrelated to his
allegations.

To the extent that Amica argues that in order to be relevant, Judge
Boal holds that information needs to have been specifically alleged
in the complaint, e.g., Answer to Interrogatory No. 7,2 that view
of relevance is also too narrow.  Accordingly, within two weeks,
Amica will provide further answers to Gottlieb's interrogatories
and requests for production of documents consistent with the
Opinion.  In addition, within two weeks, Gottlieb will serve a
revised notice of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Amica consistent with
this opinion.  If the parties still have disputes about the
applicability of the Court's decision to specific requests or
topics of examination, they will first confer in an effort to
resolve those disputes before filing any further motions.  The
parties are also reminded of their obligation to confer in good
faith about the matters for examination pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Boal grants in part and denies in
part Amica's motion for a protective order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pp2hn4mt from Leagle.com.


ANDERS GROUP: Swain Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LISA SWAIN, an individual on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ANDERS GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00197-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the
      pleadings must be filed by no later than August 31, 2021.

   -- Class certification discovery shall be completed by no later

      than November 15, 2021.

   -- The motion for class certification shall be filed by no later

      than December 15, 2021.

   -- Any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be

      filed by no later than February 15, 2022.

   -- Any reply brief in support of the motion for class
      certification shall be filed by no later than March 15,
2022.

   -- The motion for class certification shall be heard on March
      23, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.

   -- A status conference to set further scheduling dates is set
      for July 7, 2022, at 9:30 11 a.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCeJkk at no extra charge.[CC]


ARS NATIONAL: Faces Matthews Suit for Abusive Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES INC., Case:
1:21-cv-02277 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2021) is brought against the
Defendant for abusive collection practices and for sharing personal
and confidential information without the Plaintiff's consent in
violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

The complaint alleges that Defendant sent information regarding the
Plaintiff and her purported debt to Compumail, a third-party
commercial mail house. Plaintiff never consented to having her
personal and confidential information, concerning the debt or
otherwise, shared with anyone else. Defendant unlawfully
communicated with the unauthorized third-party mail house solely
for the purpose of streamlining its generation of profits without
regard to the propriety and privacy of the information which it
discloses to such third-party. As a result of the Defendant's
violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was harmed by being
subjected to abusive collection practices, from which she had a
substantive right to be free, by having her privacy invaded, and by
having her private and protected information shared and
disseminated with unauthorized parties.

ARS National Services, Inc. is a collection agency located in
Escondido, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: YZelman@marcuszelman.com


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a company
subsidiary continues to defend an employment class action suit in
California.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's
hotel management companies alleging violations of certain
California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels
owned by subsidiaries of the Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.

Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.

Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.

Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there
remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, we do not believe that any potential loss to the Company is
reasonably estimable at this time. As of March 31, 2021, no amounts
have been accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the
U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Unit Continues to Defend Membrives Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Remington
Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives.

On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.

On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).

The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees. In 2017, the class was certified.

On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the
summary judgment to the New York State Appellate Division, Second
Department, and the appeal is still pending.

By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred the
matter for mandatory mediation.

The parties participated in mediation on June 22, 2020, however,
they were not able to arrive at mutually acceptable settlement
terms. Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment
issue, the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the
plaintiffs' alleged damages, however, the trial judge retired at
the end of 2020 without deciding any issues relating to damages.

The case has been re-assigned, and the new trial judge has directed
the parties to explore another round of mediation. If this effort
is unsuccessful, the trial court will likely schedule a hearing on
the damages issue.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs'
claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome
is probable.

Ashford said, "If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in
any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range
between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus interest
and attorneys' fees. As of March 31, 2021, no amounts have been
accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the
U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


AT&T SERVICES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Harrington FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CEDRIC HARRINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
SOUTH-WESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
SA-21-CV-00012-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.

Plaintiff Harrington is a former opt-in plaintiff in a decertified
collective action previously filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas -- Mosley-Lovings v. AT&T Corp., No.
3:18-cv-01145-B (N.D. Tex.), decertified on Apr. 6, 2020.  In the
Mosley-Lovings suit, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the AT&T Defendants for failure
to pay required overtime premium payments.

Upon decertification of the asserted class, the Mosley-Lovings
Plaintiffs represented to the court they "intended to pursue each
of their claims for weekly and daily unpaid overtime in individual
actions, or in small groups of less than ten employees, if and
where appropriate to serve the interests of judicial economy."  The
Mosley-Lovings Plaintiffs specifically requested the opt-in
plaintiffs be dismissed without prejudice "to refile their
individual claims."  On April 6, 2020, the Mosley-Lovings Court
issued an order decertifying the class and dismissing the opt-in
plaintiffs "without prejudice to refile their own claims."

After the Court decertified the class in the Mosley-Lovings suit,
on July 2, 2020, Harrington and eight other former Mosley-Lovings
opt-in plaintiffs filed suit in the Court against the same AT&T
Defendants -- Harrington et al v. Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P.
et al, No. 5:20-cv-00770-JKP-RBF ("Harrington #1").  In Harrington
#1, Harrington and the other individual plaintiffs filed suit for
violation of the FLSA based upon the AT&T Defendants' alleged
failure to pay call center workers for overtime hours worked.

Specifically, the Harrington #1 Plaintiffs alleged they worked as
hourly-paid, non-exempt call center employees pursuant to the terms
of a collective bargaining agreement.  The Harrington #1 Plaintiffs
alleged they routinely worked over 40 hours per week but were not
paid for all hours worked. Pursuant to "a decision, policy, or
plan/practice," the AT&T Defendants required the named Plaintiffs
to work unpaid hours before and after their scheduled shifts that
were not represented on their time clocks.  The Defendants also
improperly calculated the number of hours worked, resulting in lack
of credit for actual hours worked.  The Harrington #1 Plaintiffs
alleged these wrongful practices resulted in them not being "paid
for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, in violation of the
FLSA."

On Oct. 30, 2020, which was the Scheduling Order deadline to seek
leave to amend pleadings, the Harrington #1 Plaintiffs moved for
leave to file an amended complaint seeking to add a cause of action
for breach of contract based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement
("CBA") between the AT&T Defendants and the Communications Workers
of America.  On Dec. 2, 2020, Magistrate Judge Farrer held a
hearing on the Motion for Leave to Amend.  The Plaintiffs did not
appear at this hearing.

At the hearing, Magistrate Judge Farrer explained he would strike
the Motion for Leave to Amend as a sanction for the Plaintiffs'
failure to appear at the hearing and stated any subsequent attempt
to amend would be governed by the more-stringent "good cause"
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.  On the same
date, Magistrate Judge Farrer issued an Order striking the Motion
for Leave as a sanction for failure to comply with a Court order
and failure to appear at a scheduled hearing.

Alternatively, Magistrate Judge Farrer found grounds to deny the
Motion for Leave to Amend "because the proposed amendment was
futile" based upon the Harrington #1 Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures without any
exception to that jurisdictional exhaustion requirement.  The
Sanction Order instructed the Harrington #1 Plaintiffs that any
future motions seeking leave to amend would be governed by Rule 16,
and "would need to explain -- with supporting authority -- how the
Plaintiffs' actions are consistent with good cause for failing to
amend within the Scheduling Order deadline."

Shortly thereafter, Cedric Harrington filed the instant suit on
Jan. 7, 2021, in his individual capacity and on behalf of "others
similarly situated" ("Harrington #2).  In the present action,
Harrington asserts a cause of action for violation of the FLSA
based upon the alleged failure to pay himself and the same
"similarly situated" call center workers for overtime hours
worked.

In support of the FLSA cause of action, Harrington asserts he and
"other similarly situated plaintiffs" routinely worked over 40
hours per week but were not paid for all time worked.  He alleges
he would occasionally work less than 40 hours in a given workweek
but still work in excess of 8 hours on one or more days during
those workweeks.  Pursuant to a decision, policy, or plan/practice,
Defendants suffered or permitted the Plaintiffs to work many hours
of straight time and overtime without compensation.

The Plaintiff seeks to bring an action under the FLSA for all
overtime minutes worked, but not paid, in workweeks where the
Plaintiffs were paid for at least 40 hours of work time and
specifically exempting from the putative collective all plaintiffs
in the Mosley v. AT&T progeny cases.

In his Complaint, Harrington also asserts a cause of action for
violation of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).  The LMRA
cause of action is based upon the same factual allegations asserted
in support of the breach of contract cause of action in the
requested Amended Complaint in Harrington #1.  In Harrington #2,
however, Harrington does not assert a breach of contract cause of
action, but rather a violation of the LMRA.  In addition,
Harrington asserts this LMRA cause of action as a purported class
action which could include the other Harrington #1 plaintiffs.

The AT&T Defendants move to dismiss the suit pursuant to Federal
Rule 12(b)(6) under the "claim-splitting" doctrine.   They contend
the suit involves the same parties, causes of action and is based
upon the same facts as Harrington #1, and therefore, is barred.

Judge Pulliam concludes that Harrington's claims in the present
action arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts and share a
common factual predicate concerning the alleged failure to pay
Harrington and the call center workers for all hours worked.
Because the claims Harrington asserts in the suit involve the same
defendants and arise out of the same operative facts as those in
Harrington #1, Harrington fails to show he is entitled to the
requested relief under Federal Rule 8(a)(2), and therefore, the
action is barred by the rule against claim-splitting.  The
claim-splitting rule specifically applies under these facts where
Harrington filed the second suit as an apparent attempt to
circumvent an adverse ruling pertaining to the amendment of
complaints.

For these reasons, the Defendants Motion to Dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ve428r7c from
Leagle.com.


BOINGO WIRELESS: Faces Normand Suit Over Merger w/ Digital Colony
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NORMAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BOINGO WIRELESS, INC., MICHAEL FINLEY, LANCE E.
ROSENZWEIG, MAURICE AUSTIN, ROY H. CHESTNUTT, MICHELE V. CHOKA,
CHARLES DAVIS, DAVID HAGAN, TERRELL JONES, and KATHLEEN MISUNAS,
Case No. 21-cv-3626 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2021) is brought against
the Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Boingo by an
affiliate of Digital Colony Management, LLC. Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the proposed
merger until the material information is disclosed to Boingo
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the shareholder vote.

According to the complaint, on February 26, 2021, Boingo entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders will receive $14 in exchange for each share
of Boingo common stock they own. On April 28, 2021, in order to
convince Boingo shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed
merger, Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading definitive proxy statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and in breach of the Defendants' duty of
candor/disclosure. In particular, the proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for Boingo; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Boingo's financial advisor, TAP Advisors, LLC, in support of its
fairness opinion; and (iii) the background of the proposed merger.


Plaintiff Normand is a shareholder of Boingo.

Defendants Finley, Rosenzweig, Austin et al., are all corporate
officers of Defendant Boingo Wireless, Inc., a company which
provides wireless internet connectivity solutions for consumer
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          John W. Baylet, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Tel: 212-971-1341
          Fax: 212-202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

                    - and -

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Tel: (213) 446-6652
          Fax: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com  


BULLROCK LLC: West Suit Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John West, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and James Fleener,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Bullrock, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00214-DMT-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon.
Judge Daniel M. Traynor entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs argue the potential plaintiffs are
all similarly situated because they worked for Bullrock as mix
technicians or SWD operators, had similar job duties, were subject
to the same pay practice and exemption classification, and they
were uniformly deprived of proper overtime. The affidavits provided
by the Plaintiffs note there were similar job duties between mix
technicians and SWD operators and other individuals who worked in
these positions were paid in the same scheme, namely, they did not
receive overtime pay, but instead received a salary.

On September 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
Bullrock. The Plaintiffs state they were employed by Bullrock,
which is an oil and gas associated service provider that operates a
wastewater treatment and disposal facility. West worked as a mix
technician and Fleener worked as saltwater disposal operator. Id.
The Plaintiffs allege they, and other workers like them, were
typically scheduled for 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, and were
paid a salary without payment for overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oyr62g at no extra charge.[CC]



CANAAN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Canaan
Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN)
Class Period: February 10, 2021 - April 9, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canaan had
experienced significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during
fourth quarter 2020 ("4Q20"); (2) the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines had cannibalized
sales of the older product offerings during the 4Q20; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Canaan's 4Q20 sales and sales revenues had
declined dramatically; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Canaan
was not on track to achieve the strong financial prospects it had
led the market to believe.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

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


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased
ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) securities between November 26,
2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until July 6, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Class Period commences on November 26, 2019. After the market
closed on November 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx issued a press release
announcing "Positive Topline Data from Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE
Trial Demonstrating Avacopan's Superiority Over Standard of Care in
ANCA-Associated Vasculitis." Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants lauded the results of the ADVOCATE Phase III trial, as
well as the safety profile of avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis ("AAV").

However, the truth was revealed on May 3, 2021 when, the United
States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published a Briefing
Document concerning ChemoCentryx's New Drug Application ("NDA")
#214487 for avacopan. In this Briefing Document, the FDA wrote that
"[c]omplexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing
document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to
define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in
the management of AAV." The Briefing Document continued that
"[a]lthough primary efficacy comparisons were statistically
significant, the review team has identified several areas of
concern, raising uncertainties about the interpretability of these
data and the clinical meaningfulness of these results." The FDA
also raised serious safety concerns with avacopan for the treatment
of ANCA-associated vasculitis.

Following this news, the price of ChemoCentryx's common stock fell
over 45% in one day, down from its May 3, 2021 closing price of
$48.82 per share to a May 4, 2021 close of $26.63 per share.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial
presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data to
define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in
the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the
Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for
avacopan; (3) these issues presented a substantial concern
regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the
treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

                     About Bragar Eagel

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

Contacts

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


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 6, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against ChemoCentryx, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: CCXI), if they purchased the Company's shares between
November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of ChemoCentryx and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ccxi/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 6, 2021.

About the Lawsuit

ChemoCentryx and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On May 4, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued
briefing documents regarding the Company's drug candidate,
avacopan, noting that "[c]omplexities of the study design . . .
raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a
clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan" and that the review had
"identified several areas of concern, raising uncertainty about the
interpretability of the data and the clinical meaningfulness of
these results."

On this news, shares of ChemoCentryx plummeted approximately 45%,
to close at $26.63 per share on May 4, 2021.

The case is Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., et al., No.
3:21-cv-03343.

                    About Kahn Swick

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

Contacts

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]



CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

On May 5, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of
ChemoCentryx investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, the ChemoCentryx
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors.
Specifically, the ChemoCentryx Defendants, allegedly,
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that (1) the
study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about
the interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically
meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III
ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3)
these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the
viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the ChemoCentryx Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, CHEMOCENTRYX
SECURITIES DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$100,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR,
CLIENT RELATIONS, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802,
KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

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

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) ("ChemoCentryx") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired ChemoCentryx common stock between
November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired ChemoCentryx
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than July 6,
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/chemocentryx-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chemocentryx


ChemoCentryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of new medications targeting
inflammatory disorders, autoimmune diseases, and cancer.
ChemoCentryx's lead drug candidate is avacopan, which ChemoCentryx
describes as a "potential first-in-class, orally-administered
molecule that employs a novel, highly targeted mode of action in
the treatment of ANCA vasculitis and other complement-driven
autoimmune and inflammatory diseases."

The Class Period commences on November 26, 2019. After the market
closed on November 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx issued a press release
announcing "Positive Topline Data from Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE
Trial Demonstrating Avacopan's Superiority Over Standard of Care in
ANCA-Associated Vasculitis." Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants lauded the results of the ADVOCATE Phase III trial, as
well as the safety profile of avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis ("AAV").

However, the truth was revealed on May 3, 2021 when, the United
States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published a Briefing
Document concerning ChemoCentryx's New Drug Application ("NDA")
#214487 for avacopan. In this Briefing Document, the FDA wrote that
"[c]omplexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing
document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to
define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in
the management of AAV." The Briefing Document continued that
"[a]lthough primary efficacy comparisons were statistically
significant, the review team has identified several areas of
concern, raising uncertainties about the interpretability of these
data and the clinical meaningfulness of these results." The FDA
also raised serious safety concerns with avacopan for the treatment
of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Following this news, the price of
ChemoCentryx's common stock fell over 45% in one day, down from its
May 3, 2021 closing price of $48.82 per share to a May 4, 2021
close of $26.63 per share.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the study design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial
presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data to
define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in
the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the
Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for
avacopan; (3) these issues presented a substantial concern
regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the
treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

ChemoCentryx investors may, no later than July 6, 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]


CHSLD HERRON: Judge Approves Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
montrealgazette.com reports that a judge has approved the
$5.5-million settlement for residents of the CHSLD Herron and their
families.

A class-action suit was launched last April against the owners of
the Dorval long-term care home after some 38 deaths in the span of
about a month. The suit alleged "inhumane and degrading
maltreatment" as a result of the residence's failure to ensure
continued and adequate care.

An investigation by the Montreal Gazette last year found staff had
abandoned their posts, forcing the local health authority to take
over the facility's management.

Lawyer Arthur Wechsler said in March he was pleased to get a
settlement in the case fairly quickly - less than a year after the
suit was filed.

"We're very glad we were able to resolve the case on behalf of the
case members," said Wechsler, who took on the case with fellow
lawyers Olivera Pajani and William Colish. He said the settlement
amount was "reasonable."

Wechsler said at least 70 families reached out to his firm. Those
eligible for the compensation are patients, as well as families of
those who died. The settlement was reached last March, but a judge
only authorized it.

The payout will be made by Gatineau-based Groupe Katasa, a private
company that still runs six homes for the elderly in Quebec. The
group pulled out of the Herron in November, and the local health
authority has gone about the process of closing the residence, the
last patient having been transferred in recent days.

Wechsler said he believes the payout will be made by the end of the
year.

While the civil suit alleged the company "subjected the residents
of the CHSLD Herron to neglect, mistreatment, pain and discomfort,
and have robbed them of their dignity," the settlement comes with
no admission of guilt on the part of the owners.

A coroner's inquest ordered by the province on the deaths at CHSLD
Herron is due to begin in September, and the group's owners are
also being investigated by the Quebec Crown prosecutor's office for
criminal charges. [GN]


CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Churchill Capital Corporation IV ("Churchill" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CCIV) securities between January 11, 2021 and
February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On January 11, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that Lucid Motors Inc.
("Lucid"), an American automotive company specializing in electric
cars, is in talks to go public via merger with one of Michael
Klein's special purpose acquisition companies, including
Churchill.

Over the next several weeks, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer Peter
Rawlinson made media appearances during which he stated that Lucid
was aiming for a spring delivery for its first vehicles.

On February 22, 2021, the merger between Churchill and Lucid was
announced with transaction equity value estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37.

The same day, after the market closed, Bloomberg News reported that
production of Lucid's debut car would be delayed until at least the
second half of 2021 with no definite date for the actual delivery
of vehicles. Details of the merger also disclosed that Lucid was
projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021, instead of
the 6,000 it had been touting in the run-up to the merger
announcement.

On February 23, 2021, Churchill's stock fell $22.16, or 38%, to
close at $35.21 per share on February 23, 2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by spring
of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557 vehicles in
2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up to the
merger with Churchill; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Churchill securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 18,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506005851/en/ [GN]


CLIENT SERVICES: Court Terminates Rhee Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHEE v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-12253 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael
Vazquez entered an order administratively terminating the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification until the parties
discovery disputes are resolved.

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

Client Services is a full service Accounts Receivable Management
(ARM) firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.[CC]

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in De Lacour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom's of Maine Inc. filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANNE DE
LACOUR, ANDREA WRIGHT, and LOREE MORAN individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
CO., and TOM'S OF MAINE INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-8364, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 5, 2021, Judge
Kimba M. Wood of the Southern District of New York granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a
nationwide class of consumers of Tom's of Maine products. The
motion to certify the New York Class waas GRANTED with respect to
the claims for relief pursuant to General Business Law Sections 349
and 350, and DENIED with respect to the claims for relief pursuant
to alleged breach of express warranty.

Plaintiffs Anne de Lacour, Andrea Wright, and Loree Moran brought
this putative consumer class action against Tom's of Maine, Inc.
and its parent company, Colgate-Palmolive, asserting several causes
of action concerning the Defendants' use of the word "natural" on
the labels and packages of their deodorant and/or toothpaste
products. They allege that these products are not "natural" because
they contain "synthetic and highly chemically processed
ingredients."

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants breached an express
warranty and violated several state consumer protection laws by
falsely and misleadingly advertising their products. The Plaintiffs
filed a complaint on Oct. 27, 2016 and the First Amended Complaint
on Dec. 9, 2016.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Class Certification Order
entered by Judge Wood.

The appellate case is captioned as de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive
Co., Case No. 21-1234, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 7, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom's of Maine
Inc. are represented by:

          David K. Callahan, Esq.
          Ann Marie Wahls, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: david.callahan@lw.com

               - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          Blake Denton, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          E-mail: blake.denton@lw.com  

               - and -

          Gregory G. Garre, Esq.
          Shannon Marie Grammel, Esq.
          Christine Casey Smith, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2207
          E-mail: gregory.garre@lw.com

               - and -

          Anna Karnaze, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          John Hancock Tower
          200 Clarendon Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 948-6000  

Plaintiffs-Respondents Anne de Lacour and Andrea Wright,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7129
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

COLUMBIA GAS: Partly Compelled to Produce Docs in Parsons Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK D. PARSONS, et al., Plaintiffs v. COLUMBIA
GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:19-cv-00649 (S.D. W. Va.), Magistrate Judge Dwayne L. Tinsley of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Charleston Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for an In Camera Review of Allegedly Privileged
Documents and to Compel Production of Non-Privileged Documents.

Plaintiffs Roderick D. Parsons, Jerry E. Cunningham, Belinda
Cunningham, Bruce W. Cunningham, Annettea S. Fields, Kay M.
Greathouse, and Kelvin M. Greathouse bring the purported class
action against Defendants Columbia Gas Transmission("CGT") and
Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., alleging claims for trespass,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and inverse condemnation based on
the Defendants' use of their property for natural gas storage
operations.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for an In Camera Review.
They assert that CGT has improperly refused to produce responsive
documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product
protection.

Judge Tinsley's review of the withheld documents and the
corresponding privilege log has revealed three broad categories of
documents: Email communications and letters, data tracking
spreadsheets, and title abstracts and opinions.

CGT has claimed both attorney-client privilege and work product
protection apply to each withheld document.  It represents that the
documents were created as part of an extensive project, termed the
"Storage Initiative," to "perform a wholesale review of its title
and rights to its storage fields in New York, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania" following litigation filed in Ohio in 2012 and 2014.
According to CGT, its in-house counsel developed the Storage
Initiative and enlisted a small team of CGT employees to assist
with the project, in addition to retaining outside counsel to
"obtain and analyze title opinions regarding CGT's rights and title
to property within its storage fields" and to institute
condemnation litigation if necessary.

The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert that the Storage
Initiative is simply part of CGT's normal course of business due to
its "statutory obligation to either purchase the property interests
necessary to operate its storage fields or to file condemnation
proceedings" to obtain those interests.  Contextual clues in the
withheld documents demonstrate that the Storage Initiative is more
than a routine annual review of CGT's holdings and that CGT
intended to file condemnation litigation from the project's
inception . As such, CGT has appropriately claimed attorney-client
privilege and work product protection for most of the withheld
documents.

Analysis

A. Email Communications and Letters

Judge Tinsley holds that the email communications and letters CGT
has withheld are in large part quintessential examples of
privileged conversations between lawyer and client.  As to the
email communications between CGT's employees, only those that
convey directions or legal advice from in-house or outside counsel
are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Hence, the following email communications between CGT employees are
not shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, but
CGT may continue to withhold any email attachments:
TC_PARSONS00043644, TC_PARSONS00043646, TC_PARSONS00043647,
TC_PARSONS00043701, TC_PARSONS00043703, and TC_PARSONS00043705. In
the email chain designated as TC_PARSONS00103611,
TC_PARSONS00103626, TC_PARSONS00103642, TC_PARSONS00103658,
TC_PARSONS00103674, TC_PARSONS00103690, TC_PARSONS00103706,
TC_PARSONS00103858, and TC_PARSONS00103874, the December 17, 2018,
January 3, 4, 7, and 18, 2019, and February 1, 4, 5, 15, and 18,
2019 email communications between CGT employees and the August 3,
22, and 23, 2018 email communications between CGT's outside counsel
and the Plaintiffs' counsel are not protected by the
attorney-client privilege, but CGT may redact the remainder of the
email chain before producing those documents to Plaintiffs.

Judge Tinsley also holds that CGT's use of title services to
prepare the title abstracts does not void the application of the
attorney-client privilege to the email communications between CGT's
employees, in-house counsel, and outside counsel and the title
services' employees.  The email communications between CGT's
employees, in-house counsel, and outside counsel and the title
services that relay information related to the title abstracts and
opinions provided to CGT and its outside counsel are shielded from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.  However, mere
transmittal letters informing CGT and its outside counsel that
documents had been uploaded to a cloud-based system for viewing are
not privileged.

Therefore, the following email communications between CGT employees
are not shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege:
TC_PARSONS00111835, TC_PARSONS00111859, TC_PARSONS00111893,
TC_PARSONS00111911, TC_PARSONS00111922, TC_PARSONS00111945,
TC_PARSONS00111967, TC_PARSONS00111986, TC_PARSONS00112005,
TC_PARSONS00112012.5 In the email chain designated as
TC_PARSONS00043619, the July 20, 2016 email communication between
an employee of a title service and CGT's outside counsel and the
August 8, 2016 email communication between CGT employees are not
protected by the attorney-client privilege, but CGT may redact the
remainder of the email chain before producing the document.

In the email chain designated as TC_PARSONS00043622 and
TC_PARSONS00043634, the July 20, 2016 email communication between
an employee of a title service and CGT's outside counsel and the
August 8 and 9, 2016 email communications between CGT employees are
not protected by the attorney-client privilege, but CGT may redact
the remainder of the email chain before producing those documents.
In the email chain designated as TC_PARSONS00112725, the March 16,
2017 email communication between CGT employees is not protected by
the attorney-client privilege, but CGT may redact the remainder of
the email chain before producing the document.

The email communications and letters not specifically mentioned
herein are shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege and were properly withheld.  As such, the Plaintiffs'
Motion for an In Camera Review is granted in part and denies in
part as to the email communications and letters.

B. Data Tracking Spreadsheets

Judge Tinsley finds that the data tracking spreadsheets are
entitled to work product protection, and CGT has appropriately
declined to produce them to Plaintiffs.  The work product doctrine
shields "documents and tangible things that are prepared in
anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or
its representative (including the other party's attorney,
consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)" from discovery
absent a showing of "substantial need" and "undue hardship" by the
requesting party.  The spreadsheets were created by CGT's employees
or employees of the title services on behalf of CGT, which is a
party to the action.  Therefore, only the second element of the
work product doctrine -- whether the data tracking spreadsheets
were prepared with an eye toward litigation -- is at issue.

In sum, the Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for an In Camera Review with respect to the data
tracking spreadsheets.  More specifically, CGT has appropriately
withheld all of the data tracking spreadsheets except for any that
are nothing more than Excel-format data exports from its
computerized maps.  To the extent any of the data tracking
spreadsheets are simply data from CGT's computerized maps that has
been exported to Excel format, that data is not protected work
product because it was not created principally for CGT's use in
condemnation litigation.

C. Title Abstracts and Opinions

The title abstracts and opinions are also entitled to work product
protection, for essentially the same reasons as the data tracking
spreadsheets.  Like the data tracking spreadsheets, the title
abstracts and opinions are documents that were prepared for CGT's
benefit by various title services hired by CGT's outside counsel.
And like the data tracking spreadsheets, the title abstracts and
opinions that have been withheld were created primarily to assist
CGT in filing condemnation litigation.  To institute such
litigation, CGT needed to ensure it had accurate information about
the property interests it sought to obtain, and the title abstracts
and opinions were intended to provide that. Even Plaintiffs admit
that title abstracts and opinions "are a prerequisite for
Defendants to pursue a condemnation proceeding."

The Plaintiffs argue that they need the title abstracts and
opinions to establish their ownership of their property and that
they are unable to "obtain equivalent materials without great
expense, which would far outweigh the amount offered to them in
compensation."

But as CGT points out, the chains of title for the Plaintiffs'
properties are publicly available.  If the Plaintiffs believe that
hiring a title service to perform the research is prohibitively
expensive, the option exists to do the work themselves at a lesser
cost.  Ultimately, the Plaintiffs bear the burden to offer evidence
to prove the elements of their claims, including in the most basic
sense proof of their ownership of the property they allege the
Defendants have used unlawfully. CGT has effectively done this
already, as the Plaintiffs seem to acknowledge.

But the very purpose of the work product doctrine is to prevent one
party from making its case with the opposing party's efforts.  It
is not to say that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery
about the Defendants' "knowledge about the land rights that they do
and do not hold."  However, it would seem that there are methods to
uncover this information without use of CGT's work product.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for an In Camera Review is
denied as to the title abstracts and opinions.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tinsley granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for an In Camera Review.  He ordered
CGT to provide the documents to the Plaintiffs as set forth within
14 days from the date of the Order.  The Clerk is directed to send
a copy of the Order to the counsel of record and to any
unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/34yevaw6 from Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Hines Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned AUSTIN C. HINES, and JOSEPH
NORRIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00109-PRW (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting their motion for conditional certification pursuant
      to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA);

   2. approving the proposed notice and opt-in forms

   3. directing the Defendant to produce the names and contact
      information of class members; and

   4. allowing the Plaintiffs to begin notifying putative
      plaintiffs of their rights to join the collective action.

The proposed class consists of others who, during any period
between May 4, 2018 and the present, worked under the title of
Completions Foreman and/or had similar job duties and
responsibilities as a Completions Foreman.

Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company based in the Continental Oil Center in
Oklahoma City. The company was founded by Harold Hamm in 1967 at
the age of 21 as Shelly Dean Oil Company, originally named for
Hamm's two daughters.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hAdSAo at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          Mark E. Hammons, Esq.
          Brandon D. Roberts, Esq.
          HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
          E-mail: amber@hammonslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel R. Fulkerson, Esq.
          Andre B. Caldwell, Esq.
          Lori Fixley Winland, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The Heritage Building
          621 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 400
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 546-3774
          Facsimile: (405) 546-3775
          E-mail: sam.fulkerson@ogletree.com
                  andre.caldwell@ogletree.com
                  lori.winland@ogletree.com

COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Garrett-Evans Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the case
captioned Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-07277, is pending.

A purported stockholder class action complaint, alleging violations
of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the P&G beauty
brands acquisition is pending against the Company as well as
certain current and former officers of the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case, which was filed on September 4, 2020, is captioned
Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07277.


On November 23, 2020, the court appointed the individual Susan Nock
as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Firm as lead counsel. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on January 22, 2021.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks, among other things, monetary relief.

On March 8, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which is currently pending before the court.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


COTY INC: Discovery in Cottage Holdco Tender Offer Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated class action suit related to a tender offer by Cottage
Holdco B.V.

A consolidated purported stockholder class action and derivative
complaint concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the
"Cottage Tender Offer") and the Schedule 14D-9 is pending against
certain current and former directors of the Company, JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The case, which was
filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension
Fund v. Harf et al., Case No. 2019-0336-AGB.

On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint. After
defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss
certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and
certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l. from the action. On
August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to dismiss.


The case is currently at the discovery stage.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


COTY INC: Lewis Putative Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported stockholder class action and derivative suit entitled,
Chris Lewis v. Becht et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09685.

A purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint,
alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with
the P&G beauty brands acquisition and the Kylie Brands transaction
as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of
corporate assets by certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The case, which was filed on November 17, 2020, is captioned Chris
Lewis v. Becht et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09685.

The Company was named as a nominal defendant.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary
relief.

This case remains at an early stage.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


DELTA AIR: Court Stays Deadline on Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eierstock v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00269 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Kathryn K. Mizelle entered an endorsed order granting motion to
Stay.

All deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling order are
stayed pending resolution of Motion to Transfer, Motion to Strike
and/or Dismiss, and Motion to Certify Class. Within seven days of
the Court's resolution of these motions, the parties must file an
amended case management report, says Judge Mizelle.

The suit alleges violation of the The Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

Delta Air, typically referred to as Delta, is one of the major
airlines of the United States and a legacy carrier.[CC]

DFL PIZZA: Nagel Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Nagel, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. DFL Pizza, LLC,
Tri-City Pizza, Inc., Minuteman Pizza, Ltd., Pinnacle Pizza, Inc.,
Jay Feavel, Charles S. Dolan, John Doe Corp. 1-10, John Doe 1-10,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD-KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order authorizing him to send notice of the
pendency of this action to his similarly-situated co-workers:

   "All current and former delivery drivers employed at
Defendants'
   Domino's Pizza stores between the date three years prior to
   filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's
   Order approving notice.

This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
Colorado, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

The Plaintiff Benjamin Nagel alleges that Defendants' pizza
delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms.
First, drivers receive either minimum wage or minimum wage minus a
tip credit while delivering pizzas and other food items for
Defendants. Second, drivers are required to use their own vehicles
in making deliveries. And third, Defendants fail to properly
reimburse delivery drivers for automobile expenses incurred in
making these deliveries. Plaintiff asserts that these employment
terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3flCpXg at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erica F. Blankenship, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  eblankenship@billerkimble.com

DRAPER & KRAMER: Scheduling Conference Continued to August 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Jose Vasquez v. Draper and
Kramer Mortgage Corp., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-AB-AS (C.D. Calif.),
the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order regarding
scheduling conference.

   -- The Court has reviewed the Parties' Rule 26(f) Report and
      given the joint assertions that it's premature to set
      pretrial and trial dates, the Court continues the Scheduling

      Conference set for May 7, 2021 to August 13, 2021.

   -- The Parties are encouraged to substantively meet and confer
      regarding discovery, settlement, and all other issues raised

      in the joint report.

   -- If the Parties wish to set a briefing schedule for
      conditional class certification, they should submit a joint
      stipulation and proposed order for the Court's review.

Draper and Kramer is a property and financial services company.

A copy of the civil minutes dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wiK2Vm at no extra charge.[CC]


EAGLE BANCORP: Settlement Reached in New York Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a settlement agreement
has been reached in the putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
involving a total payment by the Company of $7.5 million.

On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.

On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.

The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company.

As previously disclosed by the Company, on December 24, 2020, by
stipulation of the parties, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York stayed the putative class action
lawsuit filed against the Company, its current and former President
and Chief Executive Officer, its current and former Chief Financial
Officer and its former General Counsel on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2,
2015 and July 17, 2019, pending a non-binding mediation that had
been scheduled for April 13, 2021.

Immediately following the non-binding mediation, the lead
plaintiff, on behalf of the class, the Company and each of the
other defendants continued a settlement dialogue and reached an
agreement to settle the putative class action lawsuit, involving a
total payment by the Company of $7.5 million in exchange for the
release of all of the defendants from all alleged claims in the
class action suit, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants.

The agreement remains subject to final documentation, court
approval and other customary conditions.

Eagle Bancorp said, "The Company expects that the full amount of a
final settlement will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers
under applicable insurance policies. There can be no assurance,
however, that the agreement will be fully documented, receive court
approval and/or meet all other conditions."

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States. It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Ebang
International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:EBON) securities between June
26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until June 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Ebang class action lawsuit, Zaker v. Ebang International Holdings
Inc., No. 21-cv-03060 (S.D.N.Y.), which is assigned to Judge
Katherine Polk Failla.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Ebang securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ebang class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Ebang class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Ebang class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Ebang class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ebang
class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights
regarding the Ebang class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ebang class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 7,
2021.

Ebang purports to be a leading application-specific integrated
circuit chip design company and a leading manufacturer of Bitcoin
mining machines.

The Ebang class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the proceeds from Ebang's public
offerings had been directed to related parties rather than used to
develop Ebang's operations; (ii) Ebang's sales were declining and
Ebang had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of
defective units; (iii) Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong Kong
had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (iv) Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (v) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about Ebang's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is
directing proceeds from its initial public offering last year into
a "series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable
counterparties." According to the report, Ebang raised $21 million
in November 2020, claiming the proceeds would go "primarily for
development," and that instead the funds were directed to repay
related-party loans to a relative of Ebang's Chief Executive
Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted that Ebang's earlier
efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had failed due
to widespread media coverage of a sales inflation scheme with
Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending platform that
defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655 million
"vanish[ing] into thin air." On this news, Ebang's share price fell
approximately 13%.

Later that day after the market close, Ebang issued a statement
representing that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders." On
this news, Ebang's share price fell an additional 2%, further
damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked Robbins Geller as one
of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered and
total number of class action settlements for shareholders every
year since 2010. The SCAS 2020 Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller
first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and
have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded
investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are
consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and
the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]


EDWARD JONES: To Pay $34MM as Settlement of Bias Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Major at blackenterprise.com reports that a federal judge in
Chicago has approved a settlement of a class action lawsuit
claiming Edward Jones' financial firm gave less lucrative work to
its Black advisors.

U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood signed off on the settlement, which
brings a close to the 2018 lawsuit on behalf of more than 800 Black
financial advisors across the U.S.

In addition to giving less lucrative opportunities, the Black
advisors said they were deprived opportunities to advance,
excluding from programs in which financial advisors were mentored
by senior advisors, and denied clients accounts and resources due
to race.

Reuters reported Edward Jones initially moved to dismiss the case,
saying the group alleged only speculative claims and the case
should be in St. Louis federal court. Both claims were rejected by
Wood. Edward Jones, which was represented by the firm Dowd Bennett,
denied the claims,

This isn't the first time a Black employee has sued a financial
services firm claiming racial bias.

Last summer, Morgan Stanley hired Marilyn Booker as its first chief
diversity officer. Booker was tasked with developing a racial
diversity plan for the company, but according to the Washington
Post, senior officials at the firm ignored her diversity plan,
avoided her, and ultimately fired her for no reason in December.

Last summer, Wells Fargo agreed to an $8 million settlement due to
Labor Department allegations of hiring discrimination against more
than 34,100 Black applicants for banking, customer sales and
service, and administrative support positions.

Although this issue has officially concluded, the firm is still
dealing with legal issues. Advisor Hub reported Amanda Daugherty, a
former Edward Jones advisor, is suing the firm claiming a "forced
sexual encounter" with another advisor during her training led to
her termination.

Daugherty claimed she "was subjected to severe and persuasive
discriminatory conduct" at Edward Jones. The firm denies the
allegations. [GN]


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Emergent
Biosolutions Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Emergent Biosolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15554&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
Class Period: July 6, 2020 - March 31, 2021

Allegations against EBS include that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore
plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the
likelihood for massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding
contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent's
facility led to a string of FDA citations; (iii) the Company
previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of
COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated
from manufacturing standards; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability
and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its
Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: USPC Bid for Class Certification Due May 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned U.S. PASTOR COUNCIL, et al.,
v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00824-O
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting
in part the parties proposed briefing schedule as follows:

   -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Summary
      Judgment: May 24, 2021;

   -- Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification: June 7, 2021; and

   -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification:
      June 21, 2021

Local Rule 23.2 requires a motion for certification within 90 days
of filing a class action complaint so that the Court may resolve it
in a timely manner, early on in the case so that the parties have
plenty of time to conduct discovery, if needed, and prepare for
summary judgment. The Amended Complaint in this case was filed on
September 9, 2021 after the stay was lifted. There is no legitimate
reason for such a significant delay. The parties also just spent
three months discussing the relevant facts in this case instead of
proposing a briefing schedule.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vaN3qJ at no extra charge.[CC]


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Deadline to Oppose Class Status Bid Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al., v.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D. Calif.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order vacating
deadline for the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion pending the parties' status conference.

The Defendants filed an administrative motion for an extension of
time to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification
motion. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant's motion on
April 27, 2021. The Court will hold a status conference to discuss
the issue on May 13, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. to occur by Zoom
videoconference.

Equilon Enterprises LLC is an oil refining and marketing company.
SECTOR. Energy. INDUSTRY. Oil & Gas. SUB-INDUSTRY.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wgP2tr at no extra charge.[CC]

FIBROGEN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of FibroGen Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ:FGEN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15554&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 11, 2021
Class Period: November 8, 2019 - April 6, 2021

Allegations against FGEN include that: (i) the Company's prior
disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the
roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia certain
safety analyses submitted in connection with CKD included post-hoc
changes to the stratification factors; (ii) FibroGen's analyses
with the pre-specified stratification factors result in higher
hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence
intervals; (iii) based on these analyses 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) 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) 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.

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

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

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



FIRST INTERSTATE: Miller Sues Over Unlawful Charging Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACY MILLER and A FEW GOOD CLEANERS individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. CV-21-45-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., April 28,
2021) arises from the Defendant's wrongful charging of Plaintiffs
and the Class Members fees related to their checking accounts.

According to the complaint, First Interstate promised its customers
that if their account balance drops too low to cover a particular
item, such as a check, withdrawal, or service charge, First
Interstate will charge the customer a single $30 insufficient funds
fee or overdraft fee per item. But as Plaintiffs and customers all
over the US have discovered, First Interstate doesn't abide by this
promise. Instead, First Interstate routinely charges its customers
multiple fees for the same item, driving their account balances
deeper into negative territory. The complaint asserts that First
Interstate's customers have been injured by the Bank's improper
practices to the tune of millions of dollars in violation of First
Interstate's clear contractual commitments.

First Interstate Bank is a Montana state-chartered bank where
Plaintiffs had checking accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David K.W. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
          Morrison Sherwood Wilson Deola PLLP
          P.O. Box 557
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone:(406) 442-3261
          Facsimile:(406) 443-7294
          E-mail: kwilson@mswdlaw.com
                  rfolsen@mswdlaw.com

                    - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          The Kick Law Firm, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone:(310)395-2988
          Facsimile:(310)395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com


FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES: Richardson Seeks Bridge Mechanics' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216,
Plaintiffs v. FLORIDA DRAWBRIDGES INC., d/b/a FDI SERVICES, ERIC
OBAL & AURA PORTER, Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80803-DMM (S.D.
Fla., May 3, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal pay
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants on October 29, 2019
up to the present as a non-exempt employee in the position of
bridge mechanic.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of intentional and willful
violations of the FLSA by failing to pay him and other similarly
situated on-call employees overtime wages at the applicable
overtime rate as required by law for all overtime hours they
worked. Accordingly, as an on-call employees, he and other
similarly situated employees were required by the Defendant to work
more than 40 hours per week since they were on call 24 hours per
day for seven days per week. Hence, they were entitled to 128 hours
unpaid overtime per week, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former
employees seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages from the
Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, litigation costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees.

Florida Drawbridges Inc. d/b/a FDI Services provides bridge
operations, maintenance, and repair services. Eric Obal was the
Plaintiff's direct supervisor and created the on-call scheduling.
Aura Porter was Defendant Obal's supervisor and in control of the
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq.
          Joshua M. Bloom, Esq.
          LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
          200 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 880-9500
          Fax: (954) 755-2993
          E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com


FOCUS FORWARD: Katz Appeals TCPA  Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bruce Katz, MD PC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Bruce E. Katz, M.D., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Focus
Forward, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-2897, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2020, the
lawsuit seeks actual monetary loss or the sum of five hundred
dollars for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005; treble
damages; pre-judgment interest; costs and such further relief.

Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C. operates as "Juva Skin and Laser Center."
Focus Forward, as part of its market research and services,
conducts surveys on behalf of its clients to gather data for their
clients' marketing and sales needs.

Katz claims that his office fax machine received an unsolicited
advertisement seeking participants for research studies regarding
the prescription of topical products and their experience treating
patients with Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated April 6, 2021, and Judgment dated April 6, 2021, granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Bruce Katz, MD PC v. Focus
Forward LLC, Case No. 21-1224, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 6, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce E. Katz, MD PC, d/b/a Juva Skin and Laser
Center, a New York professional corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, DBA
Juva Skin and Laser Center, is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com  

Defendant-Appellee Focus Forward LLC, a Pennsylvania limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Samantha Southall, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          2 Liberty Place, 50 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665-8700
          E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com

FPA VILLA DEL LAGO: Lawrence Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LAWRENCE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FPA
VILLA DEL LAGO, LLC, and TRINITY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01517-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion for class certification.

In this case, the Plaintiff and every putative class member
executed the same form contract with the same party that provides
the foundation for all claims. Each class member lived at the same
high-density private dorm, and each moved out because of COVID-19
and college campus shutdowns. Each therefore lost the use of the
facilities and services that the Defendants did not and could not
safely provide, yet each has either paid for or is being dunned for
payment. And while the Defendants naturally contest the Plaintiff's
claims, its defenses apply to all class members, making a
class-wide resolution the best and most efficient means of
resolving this dispute -- which, because of the relatively small
sums involved, cannot be reasonably brought on an individual basis.


The Plaintiff and putative class members were college students and
residents of the private dorm-like student housing complex called
"The Social 2700 Student Spaces," which is owned by Defendant FPA
Villa Del Lago, LLC, and managed by Defendant Trinity Property
Consultants, LLC. The Plaintiff and class members vacated The
Social 2700 Student Spaces after their colleges shut down in light
of the health dangers associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXfiIZ at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather H. Jones, Esq.
          William "Peerce" Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          SunTrust Financial Center
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Franklin
Wireless Corp. Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Franklin Wireless Corp. (NASDAQ: FKWL)
Class Period: September 17, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Franklin's hotspot devices suffered from
battery issues, including overheating, thereby presenting a fire
hazard; (2) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that the
Company's customers would recall Franklin's devices; (3) that, as a
result, Franklin would suffer reputational harm; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

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


FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Franklin Wireless Corp. (NASDAQ:
FKWL) between September 17, 2020 through April 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important June 15, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Franklin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2086.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Franklin's hotspot devices
suffered from battery issues, including overheating, thereby
presenting a fire hazard; (2) as a result, it was reasonably likely
that the Company's customers would recall Franklin's devices; (3)
as a result, Franklin would suffer reputational harm; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Franklin's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the Franklin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2086.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]



GATES CORP: Court Refuses to Approve Class Settlement in Lundine
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEGGY LYNN LUNDINE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 18-1235-JPO (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies:

    (i) the parties' motion to approve the settlement agreement;
        and

   (ii) the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees.

Plaintiff Lundine filed the wage-and-hour lawsuit, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated class members, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Gates failed to pay her and other hourly
manufacturing employees overtime pay for work performed "off the
clock" at the Defendant's plants.  The class consists of 112 opt-in
Plaintiffs, including the named Plaintiff.

The parties represent they reached agreement on the material terms
of a settlement on Feb. 1, 2021.  On May 5, 2021, they jointly
moved to approve the settlement agreement, and the Plaintiff filed
an unopposed motion for attorney fees.

Because of deficiencies within the settlement agreement, Magistrate
Judge O'Hara denies the motions without prejudice.  He explains
that the Court has a duty to ensure FLSA settlements represent a
"fair and reasonable" resolution of a bona fide dispute.  The
proposed settlement must also contain an award of reasonable
attorney fees, and the Court must determine whether plaintiff's
service award is fair and reasonable.  The FLSA doesn't require a
fairness hearing like that required for class-action settlements
brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  But the Court
routinely holds fairness hearings for FLSA settlements unless the
parties notify it that the opt-in Plaintiffs had notice of the
settlement and an opportunity to object.

Judge O'Hara finds that the parties haven't requested a fairness
hearing; indeed, they argue one isn't necessary because "the record
is complete with all material facts and terms relating to the
settlement of the matter."  But their submissions, including their
motion and proposed notice and release for the class members, don't
reflect that the opt-in Plaintiffs have had sufficient notice and
the opportunity to object.

The release proposed by the parties is overly broad, Judge O'Hara
also finds.  He holds that pervasive, overly broad releases have no
place in settlements of most FLSA claims.  Under the FLSA,
employers can't "use the settlement of FLSA claims to extract a
general release of claims before paying over the wages.  It is
unfair, and it provides employers with a windfall should some
unknown claim accrue to the employee at a later time.  The FLSA
requires employers to pay, unconditionally, a worker's wages.  The
Judge finds that the proposed claim and release form requires
opt-in Plaintiffs to agree to a broad release of all wage-and-hour
and wage payment claims.

Finally, the Judge finds that the parties' proposed release also
includes a confidentiality provision that purports to preclude the
class members from disclosing the terms of the agreement.  Courts
in the district have ruled FLSA settlement agreements should not be
kept confidential.  Such provisions "contravene the legislative
purpose of the FLSA."  The Judge won't approve an agreement
containing a confidentiality provision.

Judge O'Hara orders that parties to re-file a motion for
preliminary approval, addressing these deficiencies, by May 25,
2021.  They will attach a new settlement agreement and a proposed
30-day notice to the class.  The Court intends to conduct a
fairness hearing and consider a motion for final approval by August
or September.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bsen6fpc from Leagle.com.


GENERAL REVENUE: Goldberg Sues Over Misleading Debt's Amount Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALTER Y. GOLDBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02698 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a debt collection
letter to the Plaintiff with misleading information on the alleged
debt's total amount due. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to
evaluate how much is truly being alleged as the correct balance, is
being misled at to the total owed, and cannot properly evaluate the
demand for payment or how to address it, the suit adds.

General Revenue Corporation is a debt collection firm doing
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Uri Horowitz, Esq.
         HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
         144-41 70th Road
         Flushing, NY 11367
         Telephone: (718) 705-8700
         Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
         E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com

GENWORTH LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for March 9, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JUDY HALCOM, et al., v.
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00019-REP
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order that:

   1. The Court shall hear oral argument on the forthcoming Motion
      for Class Certification at 10:00 a.m. March 9, 2022;

   2. The parties confirmed that they are pursuing private
      mediation and, by May 28, 2021, the parties shall advise the

      Court when the mediation is scheduled to occur; and

   3. The parties shall also confer and submit on March 9,
      2022, a proposed scheduled for the taking of discovery on
the
      merits of the case.

Genworth is a subsidiary of Genworth Financial, a company that can
trace its roots back to 1871. The company focuses on long-term care
insurance and mortgage.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ov8xfh at no extra charge.[CC]

HANBAT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Paguay et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES PAGUAY, BERNARDO TIZAMITL, and JOSE MANUEL NEPONUCEMO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. HANBAT RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a HAN BAT, and NACK GYEUN MUN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03916 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants who were
employed as a cook, a food preparer, a stock worker, and a
dishwasher.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the
Defendants' common policy and practices which violate their rights
under the FLSA and NYLL by denying them their lawfully earned
wages. The Plaintiffs assert that they did not receive payment for
all their hours worked, which resulted in their effective rate of
pay falling below the required minimum wage rate, as well as
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, and the spread-of-hours pay at the basic minimum wage
rate before allowances for each day their spread of hours exceeded
ten hours. In addition, the Defendants willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA and NYLL
by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll
records. Moreover, the Defendants failed to post the required
postings or notices to employees regarding the applicable wage and
hour requirements of the FLSA and NYLL, and failed to provide them
with accurate wage statements at the time of their payment of
wages, the suit contends.

The Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages in an amount equal to
one hundred percent of the total amount of minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and spread of hours pay pursuant to FLSA and NYLL, as
well as pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and
expenses and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

Han Bat Restaurant, Inc. operates a Korean restaurant owned by Nack
Gyeun Mun. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HENDERSON, NV: May 21 Extension to Oppose Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN and THOMAS
WOODBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V, inclusive; and
ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.), the Parties stipulate and request
an order extending the time for the Defendant to file an opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended
complaint, filed April, 23, 2021, by two weeks from the current
deadline of May 7, 2021 up to and including May 21, 2021.

The parties also agree to a reciprocal extension of the deadline
for Plaintiffs' Reply in support of that Motion by one week and it
shall be filed no later than, June 4, 2021. The parties also
stipulate and request an order extending the time for Defendant to
file an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Collective Action
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), filed April 29, 2021, by
three weeks from the current deadline of May 13, 2021 up to and
including June 3, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3waPdqj at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Mott, Esq.
          LITTLER M. ENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89169-5

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ethan D. Thomas., Esq.
          Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          Facsimile: (702) 862.8811
          E-mail: mpaek@littler.com
                  edthomas@littler.com

HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Junks Gatore Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RICA GATORE, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No.
1:15-cv-00459-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered
an order in accordance with the oral rulings issued by the Court at
the motions hearing held on April 30, 2021, via teleconference:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   2. denying the Individual Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for
      Leave to Add Plaintiffs to the Complaint, and to File that
      Amended Complaint.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wuYl9x at no extra charge.[CC]




HOMELAND SECURITY: Seeks Briefing Abeyance of Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al., v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,Case No.
1:21-cv-00100-EGS (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order to continue holding in abeyance the briefing on and the
Court's consideration of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and motion for classwide preliminary Injunction for an additional
12 days or through May 25, 2021.

By Minute Order dated May 4, 2021, the Court granted the parties'
previous Joint Motion to Continue Holding in Abeyance Plaintiffs'
Motions for Class Certification and Classwide Preliminary
Injunction. As part of the Order, Plaintiffs' deadline to file
their reply in support of the foregoing motions was moved to May
13, 2021.

The parties have continued to engage in discussions exploring ways
to resolve or narrow the dispute at issue in this case. To
facilitate the continuation of these discussions, the parties
believe the most reasonable and efficient course of action is to
continue the temporary stay of further proceedings on the motions.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33YlSTM at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Daniel A. Galindo, Esq.
          Omar Jadwat, Esq.
          Ming Cheung, Esq.
          Stephen B. Kang, Esq.
          Cody Wofsy, Esq.
          Morgan Russell, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          Kathryn Huddleston, Esq.
          Rochelle Garza, Esq.
          Brantley Shaw Drake, Esq.
          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2600

               - and -

          Tamara F. Goodlette, Esq.
          REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR
          LEGAL EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES(RAICES)
          802 Kentucky Avenue
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 960-3206

               - and -

          Karla M. Vargas, Esq.
          TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
          1017 W. Hackberry Ave.
          Alamo, TX 78516
          Telephone: (956) 787-8171

               - and -

          Robert Silverman, Esq.
          Irit Tamir, Esq.
          OXFAM AMERICA
          Boston, MA 02115, Suite 500
          Telephone: (617) 482-1211

               - and -

          Jamie Crook, Esq.
          Karen Musalo, Esq.
          CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES
          200 McAllister St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 565-4877

The Defendants are represented by:

          Channing D. Phillips, Esq.
          Acting United States Attorney
          Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
          Acting Chief, Civil Division
          Sean M. Tepe, Esq.
          Assistant United States Attorney
          555 Fourth St., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2533
          E-mail: sean.tepe@usdoj.gov

HUDSON HALL: Court Junks Stewart Bid for Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK STEWART, on behalf
of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. HUDSON HALL LLC, d/b/a MERCADO LITTLE SPAIN, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00885-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Sarah L. Cave entered an order denying the motion for conditional
certification of FLSA Collective and for Court Facilitation of
Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Court finds that Stewart has failed to meet his burden of
showing that collective action treatment is appropriate for the
Supplemental Off-the-Clock Allegations.

Stewart asks the Court to grant conditional certification of his
FLSA claim as a representative collective action on behalf of:

   "all current and former non-exempt employees, including line
   cooks, cooks, food preparers, stock persons, counterpersons,
   porters, dishwashers, and food runners, employed by Defendants
   at any Restaurant, Bar, or Kiosk at Defendants' place of
   business on or after" January 31, 2014"

The Defendants own and operate several restaurants, bars, and
kiosks that comprise "Mercado Little Spain," located at 10 Hudson
Yards in Manhattan. Stewart alleges that Mercado Little Spain's
restaurants, bars, and kiosks "operate as a single integrated
enterprise and are engaged in related activities, share common
ownership, and have a common business purpose" insofar as they,
share similar "Iberian" menus, present their menus on Mercado
Little Spain's website, employ "interchangeable" employees, share
payroll methods, have a centralized labor relations system and
marketing department, and share social media accounts.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 4, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3foNR4x at no
extra charge.[CC]


INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Levine Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Senior District
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment against Innate, Nepute
Enterprises LLC, and ProFax, Inc.

Plaintiff Levine Hat filed the lawsuit against Defendants Innate,
Nepute, and ProFax, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA").  Defendant Innate
is an umbrella organization for advertising and managing
chiropractic clinics, and it operates 12 chiropractic offices in
four markets across the United States.

On July 5, 2016, Defendant Innate, through facsimile broadcaster
Defendant ProFax, sent the Plaintiff a fax advertising "a FREE
Lunch 'n Learn on Stress Management for your employees."  Defendant
Nepute operates several chiropractic clinics in St. Louis, Missouri
and was among the chiropractors that partnered with Innate to
facilitate the creation of the onsite wellness programs with
businesses who responded to Innate's Lunch N' Learn faxes.

The Plaintiff contends that Innate contracted with Defendant ProFax
to send tens of thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements to
persons with whom Innate had no preexisting relationship.  It
claims that the subject faxes run afoul of the TCPA.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the subject faxes did not satisfy any of Section
227(b)(1)(C)'s requirements.

On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated the action under the TCPA
on behalf of itself and a purported nationwide class.  It alleges
it was annoyed and disturbed by receiving the fax from Innate, that
it lost employee time in reviewing and disposing of the junk fax,
and that it wasted the use of its fax machine and ink and paper
used to print the junk fax.  The total number of Innate fax
recipients is 10,031 according to the Plaintiff.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class using
the following definition: "All persons who received a facsimile
transmission sent by ProFax, Inc., on behalf of Innate Intelligence
LLC or its chiropractic clinics between Jan. 27, 2016 and July 13,
2016, as confirmed by either: (1) presence on a facsimile
transmission log produced by Innate Intelligence LLC in this case
showing one or more transmissions sent and complete; or (2)
presence on a list of those who opted out from receiving future
faxes from Innate Intelligence LLC, produced by ProFax, Inc. in
this case."

The Plaintiff has filed motions for summary judgment against the
three remaining Defendants in the case.  Only ProFax has responded
in opposition.  ProFax also moved for summary judgment and to
decertify the class.

Discussion

I. Motion for Summary Judgment

A. ProFax

The Plaintiff brings its Count VIII against ProFax for violation of
the TCPA in that it failed to include proper opt-out notices on
unsolicited advertisements.  Fax broadcasters such as ProFax are
liable under the TCPA for sending junk faxes, including the
inclusion of opt-out notices on unsolicited advertisements, if they
demonstrate "a high degree of involvement in or actual notice of
the unlawful activity" and the fax broadcaster "fails to take steps
to prevent such facsimile transmissions."

In the case, it is undisputed that ProFax was the broadcaster of
the subject faxes.  ProFax disputes two other aspects of the
Plaintiff's claim: That the faxes were advertisements and that
ProFax had a high degree of involvement in the unlawful activity.

Judge Limbaugh finds that (i) the subject faxes are advertisements
within the definition of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(5); (ii) ProFax's
conduct in setting up the opt-out service, with its tollfree
number, website, and PIN, was essential to meet the required
disclosures under the statute, and constitutes a high degree of
involvement as a matter of law; and (iii) he will order further
briefing on the conversion claim and the matters raised, should the
Plaintiff even choose to pursue the claim further in light of its
success on the TCPA claim.  Hence, the summary judgment motion on
this count will be held in abeyance pending the additional
briefing.

B. Innate and Nepute

Each of the three remaining Defendants has a distinct role: ProFax
was the fax broadcaster, Innate was the fax's developer, sender,
and the party for whom the advertisement directed recipients for
service, and Nepute was a partner with Innate and one of the
hopeful chiropractors who looked to Innate to broker arrangements
between businesses and themselves for on-site wellness visits.

The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against Innate and Nepute
on its claim that both are liable for the violations of the TCPA
regarding the subject faxes.  It contends that Innate and Nepute
sent the subject fax advertisements which violated the TCPA because
of the faxes' improper opt-out notice.  The Defendants also had no
prior relationship with the owners of the fax numbers they
purchased, so no exclusion for an existing business relationship
exists.  Further, the Court has already concluded that the faxes
were advertisements.  The Plaintiff has also offered uncontroverted
evidence that Innate was the "sender" of the fax based on the
information on the face of the document.

Jdge Limbaugh holds that the Plaintiff has offered evidence to
support its claims against Innate and Nepute.  Neither Innate nor
Nepute responded to the motions for summary judgment. T he motions
for summary judgment will be granted.

II. Motion to Decertify Class

ProFax argues that its dire financial circumstances mean that the
Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), requiring that a class
action is the superior method of adjudication.  It cites Versteeg
v. Bennett, Deloney & Noyes, P.C., 271 F.R.D. 668, 673-74 (D. Wyo.
2011), which held that class action was not superior to the other
available methods of adjudication because "defendants have limited
financial ability to pay a recovery" and "there is little chance of
recovery by individual class members."

Jdge Limbaugh finds that although ProFax argues that the
Plaintiff's case has caused financial ruin for it and the two
remaining other Defendants, those are the Defendants the Plaintiff
is left with.  Should the Defendants be unable to satisfy a
judgment, then the Plaintiff will have to face that result.  The
questions of law and fact common to the class members still
predominate in the matter, whatever the outcome, and the Judge is
reluctant to decertify a class based only on the financial position
of the Defendant.

ProFax also argues that the 10,000-member class would require
10,000 mini-trials to determine whether the fax they received was
received over the Internet by email as opposed to on a physical fax
machine.  This, it says, is not appropriate for a class action.

The Judge holds that some of the 10,000-plus members of the class
likely received the subject faxes via email and not on "a telephone
facsimile machine."  Accordingly, the parties are ordered to submit
additional briefing on this issue that may include possibility of
narrowing the class to include only phone numbers that received the
subject faxes on a standalone telephone facsimile machine.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Limabaugh vacated the trial
setting of May 17, 2021.  He granted the Plaintiff's motions for
summary judgment against ProFax, Innate, and Nepute.  He denied in
part and held in abeyance ProFax's motion for summary judgment and
to decertify class.  The parties will submit further briefing on
the matters regarding the Plaintiff's conversion claim and class
certification as described by June 11, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/keddwv8 from Leagle.com.


INOVIO PHARMA: Discovery in McDermid Putative Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the purported shareholder class action suit entitled,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim.

On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, naming the company and J. Joseph Kim, the
company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its development of a vaccine for
COVID-19 in the company's public disclosures in violation of
certain federal securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. On June 18, 2020, the court appointed
Manuel Williams to serve as lead plaintiff.

On August 3, 2020, Mr. Williams filed a consolidated complaint,
naming the company and three of its officers as defendants.

On September 21, 2020, Mr. Williams and another purported
stockholder, Andrew Zenoff filed a first amended complaint, naming
the company and three of its officers as defendants. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint on
November 5, 2020. On February 16, 2021, the court issued an order
granting in part, and denying in part, Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
dismissed with prejudice, the claims premised on the April 30 and
June 30, 2020 statements. The court denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the remaining statements. On March 9, 2021,
Defendants filed their answer to the complaint.

The case is now in discovery, and Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due on or before July 29, 2021.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops
pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA
vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United
States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.


INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Gatto Sues Over Fish Oil's False Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GATTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION and NUTRA
MANUFACTURING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00889 (C.D. Cal.,
May 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the
New York General Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' deceptive practices associated
with the advertising, labeling and sale of the Triple Strength Fish
Oil supplement sold under the GNC brand. The Defendants
manufacture, label and sell the product as Triple Strength Fish Oil
containing Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic Acid
(DHA), the essential omega-3 fatty acids that naturally occur in
fish. Contrary to what is represented on the label, the product is
not fish oil, nor does it contain a single milligram of EPA or DHA,
the suit alleges.

International Vitamin Corporation is a company that manufactures
and distributes vitamins and related health products, with its
principal place of business in Irvine, California.

Nutra Manufacturing, LLC is a company that manufactures vitamin,
mineral, herbal, sports nutrition, and diet and energy products,
headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         KUZYK LAW, LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (213) 401-4100
         Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
         E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com

                  - and –

         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         Maia Kats, Esq.
         Mario M. Choi, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 mkats@kaplanfox.com
                 mchoi@kaplanfox.com

INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Preliminary Approval Hearing Date To Be Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Court handling the
putative class action suit initiated by Avi Yaron, has not yet set
a date for the preliminary approval hearing.

On May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al.,Case No. 4:19-cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.

The Court appointed the lead plaintiff and set a schedule for
initial motions and pleadings. By order dated June 19, 2020, the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
with leave to amend. On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
September 18, 2020.

By order dated January 22, 2021, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend.


Although the Company continues to believe this lawsuit is without
merit, on March 4, 2021, the Company agreed with the plaintiff to a
settlement-in-principle that, if approved, will resolve the
litigation in its entirety.

The plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement is due on May 11, 2021.

As of this filing, the Court has not yet set a date for the
preliminary approval hearing.

Intersect said, "As of March 31, 2021, the Company has accrued
anticipated settlement costs associated with this lawsuit of $0.3
million which is recorded in other current liabilities on the
condensed consolidated balance sheets."

Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.


INTRUSION INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Intrusion Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Intrusion Inc. (NASDAQ: INTZ)
Class Period: January 13, 2021 - April 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Intrusion's Shield product was merely a
repackaging of existing technology in the Company's portfolio; (2)
that Shield lacked the patents, certifications, and insurance
critical to the sale of cybersecurity products; (3) that the
Company had overstated the efficacy of Shield's purported ability
to protect against cyberattacks; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Intrusion's Shield was reasonably unlikely to generate
significant revenue; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

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



J2 GLOBAL: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement in Davis Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement, certification of a
settlement class and for permission to disseminate notice in the
class action suit initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A., is pending.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit
Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the
District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed
by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2
Global affiliates.

On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court.

On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case
was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the
state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the
plaintiff in 2016.

Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state
court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed
an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion.

The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July 15, 2019, the
J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On November 26, 2019 the
court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend its complaint. On May 21, 2020, the court denied J2
Global affiliates' motion to dismiss. On August 11, 2020, the court
approved an opt-in class notice.

Notice has not yet been issued and the J2 Global affiliates have
moved to decertify the class.

On December 2, 2020, the parties provided notice to the court that
they have reached a tentative settlement in the matter, and on
February 18, 2021, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement, certification of a settlement
class and for permission to disseminate notice.

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

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.


J2 GLOBAL: Garcia Files Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------
J2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an amended complaint
has been filed in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by
Jeffrey Garcia.

On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action
lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California
(20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws. J2
Global has moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.

The court granted the motion to dismiss and the plaintiff has filed
an amended complaint.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perrone Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Perrone, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL PERRONE, TOM
TARANTINO, and ROCHELLE ROSEN, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3-19-cv-00923, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2021, Judge
Freda L. Wolfson of the New Jersey District Court granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

In the consolidated class action, Plaintiffs Perrone, Tarantino,
and Rosen, who are all participants in the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan, assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by Defendants Johnson & Johnson
("J&J"), Peter Fasolo, and Dominic Caruso.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants
in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan, the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan for Union Represented Employees, and the Johnson &
Johnson Retirement Savings Plan, because J&J's senior leadership,
including Fasolo and Caruso, have been aware for decades that J&J's
talc-based products, including J&J's Baby Powder, contain asbestos
and concealed that information from investors, resulting in an
artificial inflation of the value of the Company's stock.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Case Dismissal Order
entered by Judge Wolfson.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Perrone, et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 21-1885, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 7, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL PERRONE, TOM TARANTINO, and ROCHELLE
ROSEN, as participants in and on behalf of the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others who are
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100

               - and -
           
          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          E-mail: justin@zamansky.com  

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3071  

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000   
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
         
               - and -

          Peter B. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560  

Defendants-Appellees JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PETER FASOLO and DOMINIC J.
CARUSO are represented by:

          Keith J. Miller, Esq.
          ROBINSON MILLER
          110 Edison Place, 19th Floor, Suite 302
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 690-5400
          E-mail: kmiller@rwmlegal.com

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss NY Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit filed in the New York
Federal Court, is pending.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were
pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted
by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal
has run.

In June 2020, a similar but separate putative securities class
action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in California federal court.

In September 2020, this action was transferred to the New York
federal court and Kandi moved to dismiss in March 2021.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures small vehicles
including all-terrain vehicles, golf carts, motorcycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy-saving mini-cars. The company is based in the
People's Republic of China.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: New York Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi's securities prior to March 15, 2019.

This action remains pending.

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

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures small vehicles
including all-terrain vehicles, golf carts, motorcycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy-saving mini-cars. The company is based in the
People's Republic of China.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Dismissing Kemeny Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MALCOLM KEMENY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, Index No. 656267/16,
Appeal No. 13800N, Case No. 2020-00193 (N.Y. App. Div.), a
four-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, First Department, unanimously affirmed, with costs, Judge
Debra A. James' Order of the Supreme Court of New York County,
entered Oct. 16, 2019, which:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff a money judgment for interest in
        the sum of $1,975.31;

   (ii) granted the Defendant insurer's motion for summary
        judgment dismissing the complaint;

  (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees for bad
        faith litigation; and

   (iv) denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a
        proposed second amended verified complaint to add a claim
        for a class action pursuant to CPLR 901.

The Panel concludes that although the Defendant did not move to
vacate or modify the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(a),
the arbitration award was paid in full a little more than three
months after the award was issued.  The Defendant was not precluded
from investigating the award during that time.  Further, the Panel
finds the Plaintiff was entitled to simple interest until the date
he was paid.  That date was Feb. 22, 2017, when he was paid for the
arbitration award, for which the interest was $1,975.31.  This
amount was also paid, and the Plaintiff has pointed to no express
agreement or statutory authority that would entitle him to
compounded interest, or interest on interest.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Supreme Court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiff's claim for
attorneys' fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.  Any affirmative
defense asserted was not intended to delay or harass as the
arbitration award was paid within two months of the Defendant's
answer.

The Panel further concludes that the Supreme Court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
the complaint to add a claim for a class action, as the Plaintiff
has submitted no evidentiary proof of questions of law or fact
common to the class that would predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39bp83w2 from Leagle.com.

Michael W. Rosen, New York, for appellant.

Jaffe & Asher LLP, White Plains (Marshall T. Potashner --
MPotashner@JaffeandAsher.com -- of counsel), for respondent.


LUCID MOTORS: Beeman Law Reminds Investors of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please replace the release (dated May 5, 2021) with the following
corrected version due to multiple revisions.

The updated release reads:

WHERE IS THE LUCID AIR- A CASE OF MISSING PRODUCTION CARS: WINSTON
COOKS, LLC AND THE BEEMAN LAW FIRM FILE A CLASS ACTION AGAINST
LUCID MOTORS AND CHURCHILL GROUP IV; LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS
JUNE 18, 2021

Winston Cooks, LLC in conjunction with the Beeman Law Firm filed a
proposed securities class action lawsuit against Churchill Capital
Corporation IV, Lucid Motors, Michael Klein, Jay Faragin and Peter
Rawlinson.

Lucid accessed the public securities markets via a Special
Acquisition Company, otherwise known as a "SPAC". A SPAC provides a
way for money-losing companies to raise money for continued
operations with less oversight than a traditional IPO.

The allegations of the complaint are that Lucid and the Churchill
SPAC (version 4.0) pumped the stock price based on fake vehicle
production statements. In ramping up to go public, Peter Rawlinson,
Lucid's Chief Executive Officer, is alleged to have touted
thousands of electric cars that Lucid was going to manufacture this
year with the name Air at their Casa Grande, Arizona factory.

Between a January 11, 2021 Bloomberg article (followed by a
continued media campaign) and the official announcement of the
merger on February 22, 2021, CCIV stock rocketed from $10 to $57,
or 470%.

And as Paul Harvey used to say . . . the rest of the story,
according to the complaint: immediately following the merger, Lucid
disclosed it was projecting a production schedule of only 557
vehicles in 2021, instead of thousands it had been previously
forecasting. As one might expect, the oxygen left the room and the
price collapsed.

Winston Cooks, LLC, a civil rights law firm with decades of
experience challenging difficult employment discrimination cases in
federal court and the Beeman Law Firm, founded by a United States
Marine, are ready to answer your questions about the case.

The purported class period is between January 11, 2021 and February
22, 2021, any investor that would like to be lead plaintiff has
until June 18, 2021 to make an application to the United States
District Court For The Northern District of Alabama in the matter
of Phillips v. Churchill Capital IV et al. Case No:
1:21-cv-00539-ACA. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to share
in any potential class recovery. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you.

If you have questions, please contact Rod Cooks (205-482-5174) for
further information. Or email: rcooks@winstoncooks.com.

CONTACT: Rod Cooks
(205)-482-5174
rcooks@winstoncooks.com [GN]



LYFT INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Haider Case to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lyft, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled Bigu Haider, et al., Plaintiffs v. Lyft, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-2997, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2020, the
lawsuit arises from the Defendant's practice of making additional
deductions from within passengers' fares equal to the cost of sales
taxes and the Black Car Fund (BCF) surcharge in violation of its
contracts with the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated
current and former New York City drivers who worked at any time for
the Defendant between November 24, 2014 and August 8, 2017. The
Plaintiffs and Class members claim that the Defendant engaged in
deceptive practices by misrepresenting illegal tax and BCF
deductions as administrative fees in order to enrich the company at
the drivers' expense.

Plaintiff Haider worked for the Defendant as a black car driver
from early September 2014 until July 2018.

Plaintiff Islam was employed by the Defendant aider as a black car
driver from August 2014 to the present.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated March 31, 2021, denying Lyft's motion insofar as it seeks to
compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Haider v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
21-1113, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 29, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Lyft, Inc. is represented by:

          Matthew David Ingber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2373
          E-mail: mingber@mayerbrown.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Mohammad Islam, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, as class representatives, is
represented by:

          Ria Julien, Esq.
          MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC
          1 Whitehall Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: ria@mmsjlaw.com

               - and -

          Zubin Daniel Soleimany, Esq.
          NEW YORK TAXI WORKER'S ALLIANCE
          31-10 37th Avenue
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (718) 706-9892   
          E-mail: zsoleimany@nytwa.org

MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Beck Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CZIGANY BECK, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 20 Civ. 3229 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Louis L. Stanton of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Beck's first amended complaint.

Ms. Beck enrolled at, and paid tuition and fees to, Manhattan
College for the Spring 2020 academic semester.  The semester began
with the first day of classes on Jan. 14, 2020 and was scheduled to
conclude in mid-May.

When the COVID-19 pandemic reached New York in March of 2020, the
College moved all classes online, cancelled all on-campus events,
closed most campus facilities, and required most students living on
campus to vacate the residence halls.

Ms. Beck brought the putative class action claiming that the
College breached its contractual obligation to provide students
with in-person instruction and access to on-campus activities,
services, and facilities in exchange for tuition and fees.  She
seeks a pro rata refund for the difference in fair market value
between what the students contracted for and what they received.
She also brings claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and
violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business
Law, which bar deceptive trade practices and false advertising.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC")
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

Discussion

A. Breach of Contract

Ms. Beck alleges two distinct breach of contract claims.  Both
allege that the College breached its promise to provide in-person
instruction and access to campus facilities and services by moving
classes online and suspending or vastly reducing access to those
campus facilities and services.  They differ in that one claim
alleges that the College made those promises in exchange for
tuition, while the other alleges that the College made those
promises in exchange for fees.

Judge Stanton explains that under New York law, an implied contract
is formed when a university accepts a student for enrollment.  The
rights and obligations of the parties as contained in the
university's bulletins, circulars and regulations made available to
the student, become a part of this contract.  To state a claim for
breach of this implied contract, a student must identify
specifically designated and discrete promises.

B. The Tuition Claim

The FAC recites statements from the College's website to support
Ms. Beck's contention that the College promised in-person classes
and access to specific on-campus facilities and services.

Judge Stanton holds that these statements are not specific enough
to promise in-person classes or access to specific on-campus
facilities or services.  They merely advertise and describe the
experience of studying and living on the College's New York City
campus.  The rest of the website excerpts in the FAC fare no
better.  Ms. Beck similarly cannot also derive an implied promise
to hold in-person classes -- whether from general educational
customs, course attendance requirements, the College offering Ms.
Beck's classes in person before March 2020, or the College's 30%
discount of tuition for its online summer 2020 session -- as none
of these circumstances amount to a written promise to provide
specified services.  Hence, Ms. Beck's claim that the College
breached a contractual agreement to provide in-person instruction
and access to campus facilities and services in exchange for
tuition thus fails.

C. The Fees Claim

The FAC identifies only one specific fee, the Comprehensive Fee,
which it claims "According to Defendant, the Comprehensive Fee
charged is charged in order to cover the costs of things such as
access to the Campus Health Center, student activities and
services, athletics, etc."  The College attaches to its Answer the
"Fees Glossary" section of the "Tuition & Fees" page of its
website, which describes the Comprehensive Fee.

Judge Stanton dismissed the breach of contract claim regarding fee
payments.

D. Unjust Enrichment

Ms. Beck claims that the College was unjustly enriched at the
students' expense when it moved to online instruction and closed
on-campus services and facilities without refunding students a
portion of their tuition and fees.  The College contends that "the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed because it is
nothing more than a restatement of her breach of contract claims."

Judge Stanton holds that Ms. Beck has plausibly pled that the
College was not entitled to retain her entire tuition payment after
shifting instruction online, closing facilities, and receiving
CARES Act funding.  The College's motion to dismiss that claim
fails accordingly.  Ms. Beck's unjust enrichment claim regarding
her fee payment is a different story.  That claim is governed by a
valid, enforceable provision of the parties' agreement -- the bar
on refunds of the Comprehensive Fee -- and is thus dismissed.

E. Conversion

Ms. Beck argues that the College converted students' tuition and
fees by failing to provide students the in-person instruction,
services, and facility access for which they paid.

The partial refunds Ms. Beck seeks are not specific, identifiable
funds -- they are undetermined amounts of money representing the
portion of the unliquidated, unearned benefit the College obtained
from the absence of student-related expenses which should be
distributed to the class.  The FAC thus fails to state a claim for
conversion.

F. Consumer Protection

Ms. Beck also alleges that the College violated Sections 349 and
350 of the New York General Business Law.  To successfully assert a
claim under either section, a plaintiff must allege that a
defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2)
materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a
result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.

Ms. Beck contends that the College materially misled students by
advertising "its in-person, on campus product" and changing course
once Covid-19 hit.   She also argues that determining whether the
College made material misrepresentations requires a reasonableness
analysis that must be left to a jury.

However, Judge Stanton finds that no reasonable consumer would read
the College's marketing materials to mean that the College would
continue offering in-person instruction and campus access in the
face of a deadly pandemic.  Ms. Beck's N.Y. G.B.L. Sections 349 and
350 claims are thus dismissed.

Conclusion

Judge Stanton granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The motion is granted in part, dismissing Beck's breach
of contract, conversion, and consumer protection claims, and her
unjust enrichment claim for a fee refund, and denied as to her
unjust enrichment claim for a tuition refund.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/543zhzmn from Leagle.com.


MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to data security incident.

On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.

Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.

Following the company's announcement of the Data Security Incident,
approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others
against the company in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident.

All but one of the U.S. cases were consolidated and transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to
orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally
purport to represent various classes of consumers, generally claim
to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by the
Company in connection with the Data Security Incident and assert a
variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
related relief.

Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed on December 1, 2018
against the Company and certain of our current and former officers
and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with statements regarding our cybersecurity systems
and controls, and seeking certification of a class of affected
persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and other related relief.

The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary
duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and
violations of the federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified
monetary damages and restitution, changes to the Company's
corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and attorneys'
fees, and other related relief.

A separate shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging claims and seeking relief generally similar to the claims
made and relief sought in the other two derivative cases.

This case will not be consolidated with the MDL proceeding. We have
filed motions to dismiss in each of these cases, some of which have
been denied in part or in whole and some of which are pending.

A putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of financial
institutions has been voluntarily dismissed.

The putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
federal securities laws and the shareholder derivative lawsuits
generally remain at an early stage.

The other U.S. cases in the MDL proceeding are nearing completion
of the discovery process.

The Canadian cases have effectively been consolidated into a single
case in the province of Ontario.

The company disputes the allegations in the lawsuits described
above and are vigorously defending against such claims. In April
2019, we received a letter purportedly on behalf of a stockholder
of the Company (also one of the named plaintiffs in the putative
securities class action described above) demanding that the
company's Board of Directors take action against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors to recover
damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and related claims
arising from the Data Security Incident.

The Board of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to
investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee
has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation.
The committee's investigation is ongoing.

In addition, on August 18, 2020, a purported representative action
was brought against us in the High Court of Justice for England and
Wales on behalf of an alleged claimant class of English and Welsh
residents alleging breaches of the General Data Protection
Regulation and/or the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 in connection
with the Data Security Incident. The company disputes all of the
allegations in this purported action and will vigorously defend
against any such claims.

On November 5, 2020, the court issued an order with the consent of
all parties staying this action pending resolution of another case
raising similar issues, but not involving the Company, that is
pending before the U.K. Supreme Court.

Marriott International, Inc., incorporated on September 19, 1997,
is a lodging company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company
operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520 properties across the
world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott International operates in
three business segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service and International. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.


MDL 2670: Prelim. Approval of 3 Class Deals Denied as Premature
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 15-md-2670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied as premature the motions for preliminary approval of class
settlements.

This Document Relates to: (1) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, (2)
Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs, and (3) End Payer Plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2019, the Court certified three class actions in the
multidistrict litigation.  The Defendants appealed the Class
Certification Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f).

Before the appellate proceedings concluded, all three classes
reached a settlement with Chicken of the Sea International and its
parent company Thai Union Group PCL ("COSI Defendants").  The class
Plaintiffs informed the Court of the settlements, and shortly
thereafter started filing their respective motions for preliminary
approval.  The Court set the Motions for hearing on May 20, 2021.
On April 6, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an Opinion vacating
the Class Certification Order.

In light of the Opinion, on April 9, 2021, the Court issued an
Order to Show Cause why the May 20, 2021 hearing should not be
vacated until the class certification issue is resolved on remand
after the Court of Appeals issues a mandate.  On April 28, 2021,
the Court of Appeals issued an Order stating that the question
whether the case should be reheard en banc is being presented for a
vote.  The parties were ordered to brief "whether Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires a district court to find that no
more than a `de minimis' number of class members are uninjured
before certifying a class."  The parties took the Order into
account when responding to the OSC.

The COSI Defendants responded that they were withdrawing from the
appeal and requested the Court to proceed with consideration of the
Preliminary Approval Motions "as quickly as possible."

StarKist Co. and its parent Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd. ("StarKist
Defendants"), who are not parties to the pending settlements,
responded that the Court should not proceed with certification of
any litigation classes until after the Court of Appeals issues a
mandate.  Based on the contention that the class certification
standard for settlement classes differs from the standard for
litigation classes, StarKist Defendants did not object to ruling on
the Preliminary Approval Motions, because the Motions implicate
certification of settlement classes rather than litigation classes.
StarKist Defendants also pointed out that "it appears that all
three Putative Classes wish to defer notice of any settlement
classes until a later date."

In light of the foregoing responses, the putative classes responded
with a request to proceed with settlement approval "on May 20 or on
another date in the near future."

In order to approve a class action settlement, the court "must
direct notice" to all class members who would be bound by the
settlement and find that the proposed settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(e)(1)(B) & (2). A
class action settlement cannot be approved without concluding that
"the court will likely be able to [¶] certify the class for
purposes of judgment on the proposal." Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
23(e)(1)(B)(ii).

Although all three classes were certified by the Court, the Court
of Appeals vacated the Class Certification Order.  In the present
procedural posture, none of the classes are certified, and class
certification remains with the Court of Appeals until it issues a
mandate.

Based on the contention that certification of a settlement class
differs from certification of a litigation class, the settling
parties urge the Court to rule on their Motions notwithstanding the
pending appellate proceedings.

Judge Sammartino explains that the Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded class certification to resolve "the factual disputes
necessary to decide the predominance requirement before certifying
the classes."  Specifically, it remanded the determination of "the
number of uninjured parties in the proposed class based on the
dueling statistical evidence."

To establish predominance, a plaintiff must prove that a common
question of law or fact predominates.  At class certification, the
Defendants disputed that the Plaintiffs' representative evidence,
introduced through expert testimony, was reliable because it swept
too many uninjured members into the class.  With respect to the
putative direct purchaser class, the Plaintiffs' expert opined his
methodology swept in 5.5% of uninjured members, while the
Defendants contended it swept in 28%.

As stated in the Opinion, in considering whether representative
evidence meets the burden of proving predominance, "a key factual
determination courts must make is whether the plaintiff's
statistical evidence sweeps in uninjured class members."  When this
issue is disputed based on a challenge to the reliability of
plaintiff's expert, the court must resolve the reliability dispute
before determining whether predominance has in fact been met.

Judge Sammartino holds that resolving the dispute is of paramount
importance to certification of the class.  The reasons for vacating
the Class Certification Order do not rest on Rule 23(b)(3)(D) --
"likely difficulties in managing a class action" -- but the
overarching question whether "the questions of law or fact common
to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members," and apply whether the putative class actions
are settled or further litigated.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge cannot consider certification
of settlement classes until the Court of Appeals issues a mandate.
Her conclusion is not altered by the COSI Defendants' dismissal of
their appeal or the prospect of en banc proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sammartino vacated the hearing
date set for May 20, 2021, to hear the Preliminary Approval
Motions.  She denied as premature the Preliminary Approval Motions
and discharged the Order to Show Cause.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/znhscn3c from Leagle.com.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lee et al. Sue Over Monopoly of DRAM Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN LEE, ALEXANDER DALZIEL, BENJAMIN MURRAY, JARED VAN
VALKENBURG, BRETT CLAVIER, BEN FABER, ANTHONY ANNESE, MICHAEL
REILLY, JOSHUA LODGE, ERIC ROMERO, JONATHAN CLAY, JOHN HICKS, MARY
STOCKTON, ZACHARY PRATER, and BENJAMIN ANDERSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICRON
TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SK HYNIX, INC.,
and SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-03267
(N.D. Cal., May 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged illegal conspiracy to
restrain competition for sales of Dynamic random access memory
(DRAM).

According to the complaint, the Defendants made independent supply
and capacity decisions that lead to the DRAM prices drop between
August 2014 and the end of 2015. Purportedly, Defendant Samsung
initially tried to limit supply on its own and raise prices. But
when it failed, it attempted to secretly communicate its intention
to raise prices to the other Defendants to spur joint action.
Subsequently in 2015, the Defendants grew supply at the same rate
as their forecasted growth in demand. Starting in 2016, the
Defendants intentionally restricted supply so that it grew slower
than demand by allegedly engaging in concerted signaling to each
other through public statements and actions in response that
effectuated an agreement between them to artificially restrict
supply growth of DRAM, causing DRAM prices to skyrocket that cannot
be explained by the technology life cycle or unexpected increases
in demand. Additionally, the Defendants publicly announced their
plans to keep supply growth below demand growth by not adding wafer
capacity and not seeking to take market share from each other. As a
result, the Defendants' DRAM revenues increased dramatically during
the Class period, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants contracted, combined or
conspired to restrain or monopolize trade in the market of DRAM,
and attempted to establish or did in fact established a monopoly
for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or
maintaining price for DRAM. The Defendants allegedly engaged in a
deceptive trade practices with the intent to injure competitors and
consumers through supra-competitive profits.

The Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Sherman Act, the
Columbia Antitrust Act, the Iowa Competition Law, specifically Iowa
Code Section 553.1, the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, the
Minnesota Antitrust Law, the Mississippi Antitrust Statute, the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New Mexico Antitrust Act,
the New York General Business Law, the Tennessee Trade Practices
Act, the Utah Antitrust Act, the Wisconsin Antitrust Act, the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, the
Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act,
the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Utah Consumer Sales
Practices Act, the Utah Unfair Practices Act, and the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class, who have purchased the
Defendants' DRAM, were injured and suffered damages as a result of
the Defendants' alleged unlawful anticompetitive conduct because it
caused them to pay higher prices for DRAM Devices. Thus, they bring
this complaint seeking to recover damages from the Defendants, as
well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

The Corporate Defendants are companies that control nearly 100
percent of the DRAM market, with Samsung controlling the largest
share. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Tel: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Tel: (510) 725-3000
          Fax: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com
                  riop@hbsslaw.com


MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT: Jimenez Seeks Blind People's Website Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a
MOURAD; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-at-00454 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

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,
https://www.mouradsf.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) empty links, (3)
redundant links, and (4) linked images missing alt-text.

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.

Montgomery Restaurant Partners, LLC d/b/a Mourad is a restaurant
owner and operator, with its headquarters in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Thiago Coelho, Esq.
         Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com

MY ENERGY: Mauger Sues Over Unpaid OT for Spray Foam Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MAUGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MY ENERGY MONSTER, INC. and RICHARD ORLANDI,
Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01161-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla., May 13,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated spray foam technicians overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a spray foam technician
in Florida from approximately March 2020 through December 2020.

My Energy Monster, Inc. is a spray foam insulation and solar
contractor in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   

                  
         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         P.O. Box 4979
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
         E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

NATIONAL FREIGHT: NFI Can't Assert Counterclaims in Portillo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN F. PORTILLO, RAFAEL SUAREZ, MARTIN DURAN, GERMAN
BENCOSME, EDIN VARGAS, LUIS A. HERNANDEZ, JOSUE PAZ, and ALAVARO
CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-7908-JHR-KMW
(D.N.J.), Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denies NFI's Motion for Leave to Assert
Counterclaims as futile.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar
Defendants from Asserting Retaliatory Counterclaims and the
Defendants' response thereto, as well as NFI's Motion for Leave and
the Plaintiffs' response thereto.

The named Plaintiffs in the case represent a class of truck drivers
who contracted with NFI -- a provider of logistics, transportation,
and distribution services -- to deliver food and other goods from
NFI warehouses to Trader Joe's retail stores on the East coast.
The Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit in 2015 alleging that NFI
misclassified them as independent contractors and, as a result,
that certain deductions that NFI withdrew from Plaintiffs'
compensation violated the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"),
N.J. Stat. 34:11-4.1 et seq.

On July 1, 2020, the Court certified the Plaintiff class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) to include "all individuals
who: (1) entered into, either personally or through a corporate
entity, an independent contractor agreement with NFI that had a New
Jersey choice-of-law clause; and (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time
basis to perform deliveries of goods to Trader Joe's stores
anywhere on the East Coast on behalf of NFI at any time since June
22, 2009.

All the Plaintiffs in the case -- the named Plaintiffs and the
absent class Plaintiffs alike -- signed an "independent contractor
agreement" ("ICA") with NFI that nominally classifies them as
independent contractors rather than employees.  NFI has used four
different ICA's since 2009.  The matter concerns an ICA which NFI
began to use in 2017.

None of the named Plaintiffs signed the 2017 Agreement.  Before
class notices were distributed to putative class members, NFI
informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that NFI would move to amend their
answer to enforce the Indemnity Clause against class members who
signed the 2017 Agreement by asserting counterclaims.  The
Plaintiffs peremptorily filed their Motion to Bar NFI from
asserting counterclaims based on the 2017 Agreement's Indemnity
Clause.

After the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Bar, the Court approved
the parties' agreed-upon Notice of Class Action on Nov. 6, 2020,
and the Plaintiffs' counsel distributed these class notices to
putative class members.  On Jan. 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs notified
NFI that no putative class members objected to or opted out of the
class by the Dec. 27, 2020 opt-out deadline.  Among the absent
class members who did not opt out of the class, 33 signed the 2017
Agreement.  The Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to assert
counterclaims against these 33 absent class members.

In a March 18, 2021 Order, the Court advised the parties that it
would consider the Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar alongside NFI's Motion
for Leave because the parties' briefs present substantially similar
arguments and largely rely on the same authority for both motions.
The parties also incorporate their Motion to Bar briefing into
their Motion for Leave briefing by reference.

Because the parties have incorporated their Motion to Bar briefing
by reference, Judge Rodriguez denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar
as moot and rules on the arguments presented therein on NFI's
Motion for Leave.

Analysis

I. Standing and Ripeness

In its opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar, NFI argues that
the Plaintiffs' challenge to NFI's counterclaims were premature and
not ripe for adjudication.  It also argues that the Plaintiffs lack
prudential standing to defend against counterclaims on behalf of
absent class members.  While the Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar was
pending, NFI moved to assert the counterclaims which the Plaintiffs
sought to preempt with their Motion to Bar.  NFI's Motion for Leave
established a live controversy between the parties with respect to
NFI's indemnity counterclaims.

Judge Rodriguez opines that due to the representative nature of
class actions and the class representatives' obligation to
"vigorously represent" all the  class members, "whether or not the
named Plaintiff who meets individual standing requirements may
assert the rights of absent class members is not a standing issue,
but depends rather on meeting the prerequisites of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, citing In re Asbestos Sch. Litig., 104 F.R.D.
422, 425 (E.D. Pa. 1984), amended, 107 F.R.D. 215 (E.D. Pa. 1985),
and aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. In re Sch. Asbestos
Litig., 789 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1986) (quoting 1 H. Newberg, Newberg
on Class Actions Section 1072a, at 124 (1977)).  The Court already
determined that the named Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23's
requirements when it certified the class.  The named Plaintiffs
thus have prudential standing to defend against NFI's counterclaims
on behalf of the absent class members.

II. Motion for Leave

The Plaintiffs argue that NFI's Motion for Leave is untimely,
futile, and asserted in bad faith.  Among their futility arguments,
they maintain that NFI cannot assert counterclaims against absent
class members as a matter of law because the absent class members
are not "opposing parties" for the purposes of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 13.

Judge Rodriguez agrees that NFI cannot assert counterclaims against
the absent class members and finds that NFI's proposed amendment to
its responsive pleading is futile.   Given the absent class
plaintiffs' uniquely passive role, courts nationwide have found
that defendants cannot draw absent class members into the
foreground of a class action suit by asserting counterclaims under
Rule 13.  The conclusion that absent class members are not
"parties" for the purposes of Rule 13 conforms to federal courts'
piecemeal application of procedural rules to absent class members.

As a result, courts regularly treat absent class members
differently from named plaintiffs when applying procedural rules
and statutes.  And if named class members have established Article
III standing, individual absent class members need not satisfy
Article III standing to join a class.  Thus, Judge Rodriguez'
finding that absent class members are not "parties" under Rule 13
is consistent with federal courts' pattern of treating absent class
members differently from named plaintiffs.

Having concluded that the Defendants cannot assert compulsory or
permissive counterclaims against the absent class members as a
matter of law, the Judge finds that NFI cannot assert counterclaims
and that NFI's proposed responsive pleading would be futile.  He
finds that NFI cannot assert its indemnity counterclaims against
the absent class members based on the 2017 Agreement and declines
to exercise discretion to permit these counterclaims.  NFI only
seeks to amend its responsive pleading to assert its indemnity
counterclaims.  The Judge therefore finds that granting NFI leave
to amend its answer would be futile and denies NFI's Motion for
Leave on this ground alone.  He declines to address the Plaintiffs'
alternative arguments for dismissal based on futility, timeliness,
and bad faith.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Rodriguez denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Bar as moot, and denies NFI's Motion for Leave as futile.
An appropriate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/w7xac5f3 from Leagle.com.


NCAA: Liable to College Football Players' TBIs, Geerlings Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD GEERLINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01200-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., May 13, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Hope College football
players from the long-term dangers associated with traumatic brain
injuries (TBIs). For decades, the Defendant knew the debilitating
long-term dangers of TBIs that resulted from playing college
football but it disregarded this information to protect the
business of amateur college football. As a direct result of the
Defendant's acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former
Hope football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football, the suit alleges.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the consolidated class
action suit related to the false and misleading statements made by
the company to the market and customers about COVID-19, has been
dismissed.  

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.  

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.  

On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel.

The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and customers about COVID-19.   

The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.

On April 10, 2021, the case was dismissed and closed. The
plaintiffs have the right to appeal.

NCL said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the
complaint were without merit and intend to defend the matter
vigorously if appealed.  We cannot predict at this point the length
of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the
Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas
Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida.


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Maria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated April 1, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying
Norma Maria as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and
holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to monetary and injunctive
relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered
as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's
discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-1166, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on April 30, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

Plaintiff-Appellee Norma Maria is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com  

ORTHONET LLC: Class Settlement in Solis FLSA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNA SOLIS and MAURA LYONS, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ORTHONET LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-4678 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S.
Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking an
order:


   1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
      Agreement;

   2) conditionally certifying the proposed classes;

   3) appointing Douglas M. Werman and Maureen A. Salas of Werman
      Salas P.C., Jack Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, and
      Travis Hedgpeth of the Hedgpeth Law Firm, PC as the class
      counsel;

   4) approving the proposed Notice of Class and Collective
      Action Settlement;

   5) appointing A.B Data, Ltd. as the settlement claims
      administrator; and

   6) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the instant action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and
New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law Section 650 et seq.,
against Defendant OrthoNet.  OrthoNet, a subsidiary of
UnitedHealthcare Group Incorporated, provides a limited set of
services to health plan customers.  The Named Plaintiffs are former
employees of OrthoNet.

Solis was employed as an Initial Review Employee from January 2015
to March 2016.  Lyons worked as Initial Review Employee from
January 2010 to February 2018.  The Named Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants incorrectly classified them as exempt salaried
employees under FLSA and NYLL for the purposes of overtime wages,
denying the Plaintiffs overtime wages.

Ms. Solis filed her complaint alleging FLSA and NYLL violations
against the Defendant on May 21, 2019 .  On July 19, 2019,
Plaintiffs Solis and Lyons filed an amended complaint.  The
Defendants filed an answer to the Amended Complaint on Aug. 2,
2019.

On Aug. 8, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they agreed to
conduct private mediation.  They attended a mediation session on
Jan. 13, 2020 and reached a settlement.  The Plaintiffs filed the
unopposed motion currently before the Court on May 11, 2020.

I. Discussion

A. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement

Judge Broderick has reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement, and
he finds that it is the result of arm's-length negotiation between
the parties who were aided in reaching agreement by a neutral
mediator.  Before the parties attended private mediation, they
conducted an intensive investigation into the Plaintiffs' claims,
the Defendants produced 3,000 pages of documents, and the parties
exchanged mediation statements.  The terms are within the range of
possible settlement approval.  The proposed Settlement Agreement
does not contain a general release provision but contains a number
of targeted release provisions.  As such, the Judge preliminarily
approves the proposed Settlement Agreement.

B. Conditional Certification of the Proposed Class

The Plaintiffs request certification of two settlement classes: (1)
a FLSA collective settlement class comprised of 327 employees who
worked as salaried OrthoCare Managers between Aug.t 28, 2016, and
May 21, 2019, or who filed a consent form before Jan. 13, 2020 for
any claims under FLSA, and (2) a Rule 23 settlement class ("NYLL
Class") comprised of 114 employees who worked as salaried OrthoCare
Managers between May 21, 2013, and May 21, 2019, in the State of
New York for any claims under the New York Labor Law.

Judge Broderick conditionally certifies the two proposed classes.
He opines that the proposed NYLL Class satisfies the Rule 23(a) and
the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  He also finds that the Named
Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23's higher standard for class
certification, and the Named Plaintiffs have also met the standard
provisional certification of the proposed FLSA Collective Class.

C. Appointment of Class Counsel and Claim Administrators

After considering the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), Judge
Broderick appoints Douglas M. Werman and Maureen A. Salas of Werman
Salas P.C., Jack Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, and Travis
Hedgpeth of the Hedgpeth Law Firm, PC as the class counsel.  Based
on the work counsel has undertaken to investigate the Plaintiffs'
claims, their efforts in litigating and settling the case,  and
their years of experience litigating similar actions, the Judge
concludes that Werman Salas P.C., Siegel Law Group PLLC, the
Hedgpeth Law Firm meet Rule 23(g)'s requirements.

Further, he appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Claims Administrator.
A.B. Data has experience in administering class action settlements
and has been approved by courts in the Circuit to administer
complex class action settlements.

D. Approval Proposed Class Notice

Having reviewed the proposed notice, Judge Broderick finds that it
is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and meets
the requirements of due process.  The proposed notice also meets
all of seven elements enumerated in Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Broderick granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion.

The Judge set the following settlement procedure:

      (1) Within seven days of the date of the Order, the Defendant
will provide the Claims Administrator with lists of the NYLL Class
members and the FLSA Collective Class members and the information
as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

      (2) Within 21 days of the date of the Order, the Claims
Administrator will mail the Notices.

      (3) The NYLL Class members will have 60 days from the date
the Notice is mailed to opt out of the settlement or object to it.

      (4) The Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of
the Settlement Agreement no later than seven days before the
fairness hearing.

      (5) The Court will hold a telephonic final fairness hearing
on Aug. 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.  The parties will enter the
conference by dialing 1-888-363-4749 and entering access code
2682448.

      (6) If the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, itt will issue a Final Order
and Judgment.  If no party appeals the Court's Final Order and
Judgment, the Effective Date of the settlement will be the date 30
days after entry of such Order.

      (7) If rehearing, reconsideration or appellate review is
sought, the Effective Date will be the day after all appeals are
resolved in favor of final approval.

      (8) The Claims Administrator will disburse settlement checks
to the NYLL Class members and the FLSA Collective Class members,
the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses to the Class
Counsel, the Service Awards, and the Settlement Administrator's fee
as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

      (9) The parties will abide by all terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymk2a8te from Leagle.com.

Douglas Michael Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com -- Maureen Ann Salas
-- msalas@flsalaw.com -- Werman Salas PC, in Chicago, Illinois,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Jack Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC, in
Dallas, Texas, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Travis Hedgpeth -- travis@hedgpethlaw.com -- The Hedgpeth Law Firm,
PC, Houston, TX, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Ravi Sattiraju -- rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com -- Sattiraju &
Tharney, L.L.P., in East Windsor, New Jersey, Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

Robert S. Whitman -- rwhitman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP
(NYC), in New York City, Counsel for Defendants.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Peloton Interactive,
Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/peloton-interactive-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15554&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021
Class Period: September 11, 2020 - April 16, 2021

Allegations against PTON include 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
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 U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") declared that the Tread+ posed a
serious risk to public health and safety and urgently recommended
that consumers with small children 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, defendants'
statements about Peloton's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

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

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

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



PELOTON INTERACTIVE: WeissLaw Investigates Firm Over Breach Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP, a national class action and shareholders' rights law
firm, is investigating possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the federal securities laws by the Board of
Directors, and certain Company officers of Peloton Interactive,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON) ("Peloton" or the "Company"), leading to a
recall of more than 125,000 treadmills and pausing sales of the
equipment after the machines were linked to the death of a child
and dozens of other injuries. A securities class action lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

If you own Peloton shares and wish to discuss this investigation,
or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, visit our website at
https://www.weisslawllp.com/PTON/
Or please contact:
Josh Rubin, Esq
stocks@weisslaw.com
(646) 588-3165.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

On April 17, 2021, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
("CPSC") warned consumers to stop using the Peloton treadmills
known as the Tread and Tread+. The CPSC announced at the time that
the machines had been linked to the death of a 6-year-old boy and
that they had received an additional 39 reports of adults,
children, pets and objects being pulled under the rear of the
treadmills. The CPSC further stated that "The [CPSC] has found that
the public health and safety requires this notice to warn the
public quickly of the hazard . . . ." and that "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." Since then, the number of incidents has
been raised to at least 72, including another child that sustained
a brain injury.

Despite the CPSC's dire warnings, the following day, John Foley,
Peloton's Chief Executive Officer, dismissed the CPSC's findings
and warnings calling them "inaccurate and misleading" and said
there was no reason for users to stop using the machine and that
Peloton had "no intention" to stop selling or to recall the Tread+.


However, a mere two and a half weeks later, on May 5, 2021, Foley
was forced to apologize for not cooperating with the CPSC sooner
and agreed to voluntarily recall Peloton's Tread+ and Tread
products. "Peloton made a mistake in our initial response to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's request that we recall the
Tread+," Foley said in a statement. "We should have engaged more
productively with them from the outset. For that, I apologize."
Industry analysts are now concerned whether Peloton's image as a
high-flying fitness company that dug in its heels on a safety
recall following the death of a child might be too hard to repair.

WeissLaw LLP is investigating whether Peloton's Board of Directors:
breached their duties by ignoring the recommendations of the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission while continuing to sell the
Peloton Tread+ and Tread; failed to heed warnings of serious safety
threats their products posed to children and pets; ignored
internally reported incidents of injury related to the Tread+ and
Tread; failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive system of
internal controls over its product safety practices; and breached
its fiduciary duties owed to Peloton and its shareholders.

If you own PTON shares and wish to discuss this investigation visit
our website at https://www.weisslawllp.com/PTON/ or contact Josh
Rubin at stocks@weisslaw.co or (646) 588-3165. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients. For more information about the firm, please go to:
http://www.weisslawllp.com[GN]



PENNSYLVANIA: Dept. of Health Target of Medical Info Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
local21news.com reports that the Department of Health is now the
target of a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed surrounds the information of thousands of
Pennsylvanians that has been compromised.

Overall more than 72,000 Pennsylvanians who were the subject of
contact tracing had their information breached.

In the lawsuit, the Department of Health and Insight Global, the
company responsible for the contact tracing, are being accused of
negligence.

It says the department knew about the breach at the end of February
but didn't take action until the end of April.

Claiming the information, which included names, phone numbers,
COVID diagnoses and gender identity among others, could have been
found through a simple Google search.

The lawsuit wants the DOH and Insight Global to pay for seven
years' worth of credit monitoring, as well as requiring the DOH to
use different and more secure information gathering.

CBS 21 News has reached out to the DOH and Insight Global for a
response to the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health says they do not
comment on litigation.

CBS 21 News has not heard back from Insight Global yet. [GN]


PINTEREST INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest"
or the "Company") (NYSE: PINS) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Pinterest securities between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pins.

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) that user growth was already slowing; (2) that,
as a result, the Company expected user engagement to slow in the
second quarter of 2021; and (3) that, as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pins 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
Pinterest you have until June 28, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to a crude oil release in May
2015 from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the EPA, the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the
Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for
the response effort.

Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, and as set forth in the
Consent Decree, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the
company estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims.

The company received a number of claims through the claims line and
the company have processed those claims and made payments as
appropriate. Nine class action lawsuits were filed against the
company; however, after various claims were either dismissed or
consolidated, two proceedings remain pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

In the first proceeding, the plaintiffs claim two different classes
of claimants were damaged by the release: (i) commercial fishermen
who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters
off the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood caught in those areas; and (ii) owners
and lessees of residential beachfront properties, or properties
with a private easement to a beach, where plaintiffs claim oil from
the spill washed up.

The company is vigorously defending against those claims.

A September 2020 trial date initially set by the Court has been
postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions.

In the second proceeding, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that Plains' right-of-way agreements would not allow
Plains to lay a new pipeline to replace Line 901 and/or the
non-operating segment of Line 903 without paying additional
compensation.

No trial date has been set in that action.

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

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminaling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


PREMIER TOWING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Riddlehoover Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RIDDLEHOOVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER TOWING, LLC and BENJAMIN BUSBEE,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00152-TES (M.D. Ga., May 3, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November 15, 2020
until March 1, 2021 as a tow-truck driver whose duties typically
included rendering roadside automotive assistance and towing
vehicles solely within the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff claims during each week of his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked in excess of 80 hours per week.
However, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all
hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant only
compensated him for 40 hours of work per week, he asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime for at least 42.5 hours per
week during the following weeks: 11/16/20, 11/23/20, 11/30/20,
12/7/20, 12/14/20, 12/21/20, 12/28/20, 1/4/21, 1/11/21, 1/18/21,
1/25/21, 12/1/21, 2/8/21, 2/15/21, and 2/22/21. The Plaintiff also
seeks liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other legal and equitable
relief.

Premier Towing, LLC operates a business specializing in providing
towing services to the general public. Benjamin Busbee owns the
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
          THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
          152 New Street, Suite 109B
          Macon, GA 31201
          Tel: (404) 944-3128
          E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kleinsasser Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mark Kleinsasser filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MARK D. KLEINSASSER, Plaintiff v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-05499-BHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed this class action complaint
against Defendants Progressive Direct Insurance Company and
Progressive Max Insurance Company in Pierce County Superior Court
for the State of Washington. The Plaintiff sought to recover
diminished value on a class-wide basis and individual loss of use
damages under the Underinsured Motorists Property Damage (UIMPD or
UMPD) provision of his insurance contract with Progressive. He
alleged that the total amount of compensatory damages would be
"approximately $3,010,903."

The Plaintiff now seeks a review the Court's Order dated April 30,
2021, granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Kleinsasser v. Progressive
Direct Insurance C, et al., Case No. 21-35351, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 6, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mark Kleinsasser Mediation Questionnaire was due on
May 13, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 4, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on July 6, 2021;

   -- Appellant Mark Kleinsasser opening brief is due on August 13,
2021;

   -- Appellees Progressive Direct Insurance Company and
Progressive Max Insurance Company answering brief is due on
September 13, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MARK KLEINSASSER, individually and as the
representative of all persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S.
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com  

               - and -

          Scott Purington Nealey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY
          71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 231-5311
          E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com  

Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Shannon Armstrong, Esq.
          Kristin Asai, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 243-2300
          E-mail: shannon.armstrong@hklaw.com  

               - and -

          Robert Christie, Esq.
          CHRISTIE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2100 Westlake Avenue North
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: (206) 957-9669
          E-mail: bob@christielawgroup.com  

               - and -

          John Matthew Donohue, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 243-2300  
          E-mail: matt.donohue@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          The Grace Building, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          E-mail: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com  

               - and -

          Michael Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW LLC
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 457-1668  
          E-mail: mikenelson@eversheds-sutherland.com

PTT LLC: Amazon's Rider to Protective Order in Wilson Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PTT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company AMAZON.COM, INC. Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:18-cv-05275-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
signed the stipulation and order regarding the Agreed Rider to
Protective Order Regarding the Use and Disclosure of Discovery
Produced by Nonparty Amazon.com, Inc.

The agreement is entered into between and among nonparty Amazon and
Plaintiff Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  The Parties anticipate that Amazon will
produce documents in the action that Amazon contends contain
sensitive consumer information.  The agreement is intended to
supplement the protective orders entered by the Court on Sept. 19,
2018 and March 8, 2019.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Lasnik finds good cause for the Rider and he so ordered.

Amazon Protected Material designated under the terms of the Rider
will be used by the Class Counsel and/or the Notice Administrator,
as set forth therein, solely for the purpose of providing notice to
the Damages Class Members and other uses expressly contemplated by
the Rider.  Amazon Protected Material will not be used directly or
indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever.

The computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by the
Rider will be governed by the provisions for computing time set
forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6.

The protections conferred by the Rider cover not only the Amazon
Protected Material governed by it Rider as addressed therein, but
also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all
copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Class Counsel in
court or in any other settings that might reveal Amazon Protected
Material.

Even after the termination of the case, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Rider will remain in effect until Amazon
agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs,
subject to the Final Disposition clause therein.

The Rider does not provide a mechanism for the Plaintiff to
challenge the designation or protected status of Amazon Protected
Materials. Any such challenges may be made pursuant to the
Protective Orders already entered in the case.

Not later than 90 days after closure of the Final Disposition of
the case, the Class Counsel and the Notice Administrator will
return all Amazon Protected Material to Amazon's outside counsel or
destroy the Amazon Protected Material, at the option of Amazon.
Upon Amazon's request, the Plaintiff and the Notice Administrator
will certify in writing that all such materials have been returned
to counsel for Amazon or destroyed.

The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding the
timing of the production.  Amazon anticipates that it will complete
production of the Amazon Confidential Information to the Notice
Administrator and the Class Counsel as set forth by June 4, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Stipulation & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7d8ejjc from Leagle.com.

Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, in San Francisco,
California, Attorney for Plaintiff, Sean Wilson.

Alexander G. Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, in
Chicago, Illinois, Attorney for Plaintiff, Sean Wilson.

James Howard -- jimhoward@dwt.com -- Ramie Snodgrass --
ramiesnodgrass@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, in Seattle,
Washington, Attorneys for Non-Party, Amazon.com, Inc.


RIDGEWOOD ALE: Ladino Seeks Kitchen Workers' Unpaid Wages & OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACINTO LADINO, Plaintiff v. THE RIDGEWOOD ALE HOUSE INC. d/b/a THE
RIDGEWOOD ALE HOUSE and MARCOS CORDOVA, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02449 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated non-exempt kitchen workers against the
Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a kitchen
worker from on or about August 2015 through on or about October 19,
2019, alleges that the Defendants have engaged in their unlawful
conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing costs and
denying employees legally required compensation.

The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours each week.
However, the Defendant paid him a fixed weekly salary that was not
inclusive of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay. In addition, the Plaintiff did not
receive any payment from the Defendants for the weeks of October 6,
2019 through October 19, 2019.

Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff
with a written notice of wage rates and with proper wage statements
listing the overtime rat or rates of pay, the number of regular
hours worked and the number of overtime hours worked, gross wages,
deductions, allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum
wage, and net wages.

The Plaintiff bring this complaint seeking to recover damages from
the Defendants for the unpaid overtime pay along with liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursement
with attorneys' fees and expenses, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

The Ridgewood Ale House Inc. operates a restaurant owned by Marcos
Cordova, who maintains control, oversight and direction over the
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


ROCORE KNOXVILLE: Ingram Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ingram, et al v. Rocore
Knoxville, LLC, et al. (TV1), Case No. 3:20-cv-00423 (E.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class and
for court supervised notice to the putative Class.

The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan. The suit
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rocore design and manufactures heat transfer products.[CC]


ROHR INC: Opposition to Morgan Class Certification Bid Due June 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation;
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS
AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
entered an order that:

   1. The deadline for the Defendants to file their Opposition
      papers to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is June

      18, 2021;

   2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply papers in
      support of their Motion for Class Certification is July 30,
      2021;

   3. The hearing on the Motion shall be continued to August 13,
      2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D 2021; Defendants'
      Opposition brief shall not exceed 27 pages.

Rohr, Inc. is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula
Vista, California, south of San Diego.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33SO0aW at no extra charge.[CC]


SAFRAN FOOD: Failed to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ocal Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ugur Ocal, Nusret Kelle, and Yunus Orkun, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated v. Safran Food LLC d/b/a/
Mangal Kebab, Ahmet "Doe", Semih "Doe", Engin Yasmun, and John
"Doe" #1, Case 1:21-cv-02334 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to pay each of the
Plaintiffs an amount at least equal to the New York City minimum
wage. Plaintiffs have been paid in cash throughout their
employment, and they received no paystubs or wage statements of any
sort with their pay. In addition, the defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in
a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

Defendants own and operate Mangal Kebab, a Turkish restaurant in
Sunnyside, New York, where Plaintiff Ocal worked from 2017 to 2020,
and Plaintiffs Kelle and Orkun from 2019 to 2020.[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


SANTA MONICA REHAB: Valentine Gets Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Terry Valentine v.
Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Holding Company GP, LLC et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01300-JAK-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John
A. Kronstadt entered an order:

   1. approving conditional class certification provided, however,
      the enhancement amount for the Plaintiff is reduced to
$6500;

   2. approving the Revised Proposed Notice and Revised Request for

      Exclusion;

   3. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative;

   4. appointing Graham S.P. Hollis and Hali M. Anderson of
      GrahamHollis, APC, as class counsel;

   5. appointing Simpluris as the settlement administrator; and

   6. setting a hearing on final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement for October 18, 2021. The Final Approval Motion
      shall be filed on or before August 30, 2021.

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff Valentine brought this putative
class action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against
Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Holding Company GP, LLC,
Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Operating Company, LP,
Mariner Health Care Management Company, Mariner Health Care, Inc.,
Mariner Health Central, Inc., and fictitiously named parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33WVbPm at no extra charge.[CC]


SERVALL LLC: Hagye FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HAGYE and ASHLYN
PENICK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SERVALL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01196-JDB-jay (W.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action for
      overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA), on behalf of employees of Defendant during the last
      three years;

   2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide a list of
      names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers

      for all putative class members within the last three years;

   3. approving notice be prominently posted at each of the
      Defendant's facilities where putative class members work,
      attached to current employees' next scheduled pay check, and

      be mailed to the employees so that they can asset their
      claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and

   4. directing that the opt-in plaintiffs consent forms be deemed

      "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RkuuBI at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
          WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
          101 N. Highland Ave.
          P.O. Box 266
          Jackson, TN 38302
          Telephone: (731) 423-5565
          Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
          E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Long, Esq.
          LONG LAW FIRM, PLLC
          350 Poplar View Parkway, Ste. 1
          Collierville, TN 38017
          Telephone: (901) 861-0098
          E-mail: Thomasjlong@hotmail.com

SONY COMPUTER: Discusses PS5 Controller Drift Class Lawsuit Update
------------------------------------------------------------------
screenrant.com repots that a recent lawsuit against Sony regarding
a "drifting" problem in the PlayStation 5's DualSense controller is
picking up considerable steam. The US-based law office of Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP filed this legal action
against Sony back in February following complaints by several PS5
customers, who have had to deal with the issue of drifting amid an
overall shortage of replacement DualSense controllers.

"Drifting" describes a technical flaw in a controller's joystick
that causes control of a character or menu cursor to lock in a
certain direction, even when the player isn't even touching said
joystick. Given how gaming often requires very precise controller
movements, this glitch can prove to be a nightmare for anyone
unlucky enough to come across it. When customers started reporting
a drifting issue in the PlayStation 5's much-lauded DualSense
controller earlier this year, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP posted a survey to compile cases of drift by
PlayStation 5 controllers before taking legal matters into its own
hands, stating that Sony failed to properly disclose this flaw in
their controllers when they first hit store shelves in November.   


Now, this legal action has begun to really heat up, as announced on
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP's website earlier.
According to the firm, six plaintiffs have decided to opt-out of
arbitration, meaning that they have opted to take their case
against Sony regarding the PlayStation 5 DualSense controller in
court. An amended document detailing CSK&DS's lawsuit was also
posted, one that is a good 18 pages longer than the one used to
formally announce the lawsuit a few months ago.

Drifting has become a recurring issue in current-gen controllers,
as both Nintendo and Microsoft have been hit with legal trouble
regarding the problem in the Switch and Xbox Series X - with some
of the resulting lawsuits being filed by CSK&DS as well. Shortly
after the Sony lawsuit was first filed, Youtube tech guru channel
iFixit explained the source of this increasingly common flaw in
recent gaming controllers and warned that things will likely get
worse before they get better.

In the meantime, the law office of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP is continuing to build their case against Sony,
as more people come forward with stories about how they suddenly
lost control during a critical level or even doing something as
simple as trying to navigate an in-game menu. This lawsuit
regarding the PlayStation 5's DualSense controller is still
ongoing, so interested parties should stay tuned for further
developments as they unfold. [GN]


SONY COMPUTER: Faces Class-Action Over PlayStation Game Exclusivity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
pymnts.com reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by
gamers alleges that Sony behaved in an anti-competitive manner by
denying digital download codes of PlayStation games by third-party
vendors like Amazon and Walmart, Bloomberg reported (May 6).

The lawsuit accuses PlayStation of limiting game downloads
exclusively to its in-house store in 2019. As a result, Sony's
PlayStation Store was the only place to obtain digital PlayStation
games, and users paid some 175 percent more for downloadable games
than the disk equivalent, per Bloomberg.

"Sony's monopoly allows it to charge supracompetitive prices for
digital PlayStation games, which are significantly higher than
their physical counterparts sold in a competitive retail market,
and significantly higher than they would be in a competitive retail
market for digital games," according to consumers in the proposed
lawsuit.

A Sony spokesperson told GameRiv that the move to sidestep
third-party vendors was intended to "align key businesses
globally."

"To support full games and premium editions, SIE will introduce
increased denominations at select retailers. DLC, add-ons, virtual
currency and season passes will still be available," the
spokesperson said, per GameRiv.

The class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California (San Francisco), Caccuri v. Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC, 3:21-cv-03361.

Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation have dominated gaming consoles,
with competition heating up around the holiday season every few
years. Gaming market researcher Newzoo estimated last year that 2.7
billion people were expected to play a video game at some point
during the year. Gamers around the globe were forecasted to spend
about $160 billion in 2020.

Last month, Microsoft launched its cloud gaming service on iPhones,
iPads and personal computers. The service, which gives users the
ability to stream games without downloading them, will continue to
roll out to 22 countries. [GN]


STATE AUTO: Cedarview Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CEDARVIEW MART, LLC v. STATE
AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00107-NBB-RP
(N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Roy Percy entered a case management
order as follows:

   -- This action is set for jury trial beginning on August 1,
2022
      at 9:30 a.m. in Oxford, Mississippi before U.S. District
      Judge Neal Biggers.

   -- The pretrial conference is set for June 30, 2022 at 10:00
      a.m. in Oxford, Mississippi before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy

      Percy.

   -- Until the issue of class certification is decided, discovery

      will be limited to class certification issues.

   -- Class certification-related discovery must be completed by
      January 13, 2022.

   -- Fact witness depositions related to class certification must

      be completed by October 13, 2021. Plaintiff's class
      certification-related experts must be designated by November

      12, 2021, and defendant's must be designated by December 13,

      2021.

   -- As to discovery of electronically stored information, all
      information that is electronically generated, created, or
      stored shall be produced in an electronic format that will
      enable the receiving party to have the same ability to
      access, search, and display the information as the producing

      party.

   -- Pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the

      attorney-client privilege and the work-product protections
      are not waived by any disclosure connected with this
      litigation. Further, the disclosures are not waived in any
      other federal or state proceeding.

   -- Before a party may file any discovery motion, such as a
      motion to compel discovery, counsel must confer in good
      faith as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)
      (1).

   -- The Plaintiff must file its motion for class certification by

      December 30, 2021; defendant's response must be filed within

      45 days after Plaintiff's motion (no later than February 14,

      2022); and plaintiff's reply must be filed within 30 days
      after defendant's response.

The Plaintiff Cedarview has brought this action against State Auto
Property and Casualty Company for damages and other relief as a
result of State Auto's alleged depreciation of labor costs when
calculating its actual cash value payment for plaintiff's property
damage claim.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hCYYcz at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Ritchie Sues Over Devaluing Vehicles Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA RITCHIE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 126068767 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
May 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant seeking relief pursuant to the Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff and putative class members, who are or were insured
under standardized State Farm insurance policies covering damage to
motor vehicles, allege that the Defendant violated Florida law by
using the Autosource system as a method of valuing vehicles under
Section 626.9743(5) and breaches the Policy into which it is
incorporated.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made a claim with the
Defendant for payment on her Insured Auto on February 25, 2019
subsequently thereafter his vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle
accident, on or about February 17, 2019, which rendered the vehicle
a total loss. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter on March
12, 2019 affirming Collision coverage for the Covered Vehicle as a
total loss claiming an "Actual Cash Value" of the Covered Vehicle
of $16,175.00. An Autosource Report was enclosed with the letter
stating a "Market Value" and "Total Condition Adjusted Market
Value", which was calculated by averaging the "Comparable Adjusted
Prices" of four "comparable vehicles," but none of which Autosource
claimed to have inspected, the suit added.

Allegedly, the Plaintiff and all putative Class members are in the
same predicament, each suffering an injury from what they believed
to be the Defendant's misinterpretation of the Policy and Florida
law. Thus, they seek relief against the Defendant.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides automobile
insurance policy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Tel: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

                - and –

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Tel: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com
                  maria@rothburdpa.com

                - and –

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Tel: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com


STEVEN MATULIS: Judge OKs $23MM Settlement in Sexual Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McElhinny at wvmetronews.com reports that a judge has approved
a final, $23 million settlement in a class action suit over the
actions of a former Charleston doctor accused of the sexual abuse
of patients while they were under anesthesia.

"I do give approval to the settlement as proposed," Kanawha Circuit
Judge Jennifer Bailey said at the conclusion of a hearing by
videoconference.

There are still some details to be worked out, so Bailey set a
status conference for Sept. 9 to follow up on some issues like
distribution of funds.

Steven Matulis, who was a gastroenterologist, was convicted in 2018
of first degree sexual abuse for abusing a patient while that
patient was under anesthesia.

The class in the lawsuit is made up of about 2,500 women who were
treated by Matulis at Charleston Area Medical Center's endoscopy
suite. Those were patients who would have received a colonoscopy
between 2010 and 2016.

Each of those represented by the lawsuit is expected to receive
about $5,000.

"The settlement is a strong settlement," said Matthew Stonestreet,
one of the plaintiffs attorneys in the case. "It has provided very,
very strong relief to the women in the defined class."

Women who are part of the class were notified through direct mail.
Each was provided a claim form and could opt of the settlement.

Only nine of the 2,500 class members actually opted out, attorneys
said.

David Carriger, another of the plaintiffs attorneys, said so few
opting out represents "a great indication the settlement was fair
and represents a good settlement for everybody involved."

Bailey indicated that she agrees.

"I think this is an incredible outcome given the number of persons
and the length of time from which some of these services were
rendered to them when they were patients," the judge said. "Due
process has been met as required by law in this matter."

The plaintiffs' attorneys sought fees up to 39 percent - about $9
million of the settlement amount - and $400,000 in expenses.

There are additional cases against CAMC involving Matulis. The
settlement allows other claims against CAMC to proceed up to an
additional $30 million.

A separate civil lawsuit involving Matulis and patients treated at
the Charleston Day Surgery Center settled last year. That case
involved 372 patients and settled for $890,000.[GN]


SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Appeals Ruling in Product Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shaya Eidelman filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled SHAYA EIDELMAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE SUN
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-3914, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (White Plains).

Plaintiff Shaya Eidelman brings this proposed class action against
the Sun Products Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation
alleging violations of New York's General Business Law (GBL)
Sections 349 and 350, and alleging claims of negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges that, he entered Costco in Nanuet, New York, with
the intention of purchasing liquid laundry detergent free from any
irritant chemical ingredients, and recommended by dermatologists.
The detergent bottle purchased by Plaintiff bore a label indicating
that the Product was from the #1 Detergent Brand Recommended by
Dermatologists for Sensitive Skin (Label), with the words from the
presented in an "excessively small" font size, as compared to the
remainder of the text, and the words recommended by dermatologists"
in bold.  Plaintiff also alleges that the Detergent contains a
number of known skin irritants, but that the ingredients for the
Detergent are not listed on the bottle, nor easily accessible
online.

Plaintiff asserts that the Label violates GBL Sections 349 and 350
because it falsely implies that the actual Detergent in question is
recommended by dermatologists for those with sensitive skin based
upon the ambiguity as to which, if any, of the brand's product
detergents are excluded from the dermatologists' recommendation,
and the placement, font size and general presentation of key
qualifying terms on the Label.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated March 30, 2021 wherein Defendants' motion for summary
judgment was granted and Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial
summary judgment was denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Eidelman v. Thu Sun Products
Corporation, Case No. 21-1046, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 26, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Shaya Eidelman, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gary Steven Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com   

Defendants-Appellees Thu Sun Products Corporation and Costco
Wholesale Corporation are represented by:

          Ethan Roman, Esq.
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (917) 628-1246

               - and -

          Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 312-4234  
          E-mail: bseiling@manatt.com  

               - and -

          Prana A. Topper, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 790-4500

SUR TRANSPORTE: Faces Sotelo Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
AARON SOTELO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUR TRANSPORTE, INC., JIMMY HERNANDEZ,
ISABELLA AVILA and FAUSTINO ZAYAS, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00409-GBW-KRS (D. New Mex., May 3, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in the position of driver from August 2019 through April
2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees typically worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
often 50 hours per week and sometimes more. However, the Defendant
denied them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate as required by the FLSA. Instead, the
Defendant paid them straight time for all hours they worked, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid back
wages from the Defendant, as well as liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, the taxable costs and allowable
expenses of this action, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as may be necessary and/or appropriate.

Sur Transporte, Inc. is a freight hauling company operating
throughout the U.S. with headquarters in Hobbs, New Mexico. Jimmy
Hernandez and Faustino Zayas have been employers of the Plaintiff.
Isabella Avila has purchased Defendant Sur Transporte in an attempt
to avoid its legal obligations stemming from both this lawsuit as
well as wrongful death lawsuit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Welmaker, Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.co
                  Daniel@morelandlaw.com


SWITCH INC: Wins State Court Securities Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that deadline for plaintiffs to appeal has
passed, and the Securities Actions have been resolved in the
company's favor.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case.

Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the IPO.

These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch,
Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

With respect to the Federal Court Securities Action, in July 2019,
the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in part,
which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's case.

In December 2019, Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and in July 2020, the federal court entered a judgment
in favor of Switch, Inc.

With respect to the State Court Securities Action, in February
2021, the court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to dismiss.

The deadline for plaintiffs to appeal has passed, so the Securities
Actions have been resolved in Switch, Inc.'s favor.

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: ERS Hawaii Class Cert. Bid Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for
class certification filed in the consolidated putative class action
suit headed by the Employees' Retirement System of the State of
Hawaii, is pending.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 28, 2014
and June 13, 2017.

On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff to leave to amend its complaint.
On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements of material information concerning the
Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.
On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety.

On May 29, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, without
prejudice.

Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on October 30,
2020, which motion remains pending. The Company believes that the
asserted claims lack merit and intends to defend against all of the
claims vigorously.

Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the action at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."

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

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

TMC RESTAURANT: 4th Cir. Affirms Partial Dismissal of Davis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEILONNI DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, and ASHLEY SAFRIT;
LAUREN WILSON, Plaintiffs v. TMC RESTAURANT OF CHARLOTTE, LLC,
d/b/a The Men's Club, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 19-2167 (4th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the
district court order granting in part and denying in part TMC's
motion to dismiss.

Leilonni Davis, Ashley Safrit, and Lauren Wilson filed in the
district court a putative class action lawsuit against their former
employer, TMC.

TMC moved to dismiss or stay the lawsuit in favor of arbitration.
On the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court
granted the motion as to Safrit and Wilson's claims but denied the
motion as to Davis' claims.

TMC appeals the district court's partial denial of its motion,
arguing that (1) the threshold issue of arbitrability should have
been decided by the arbitrator, and (2) alternatively, that the
district court should have held a jury trial on the issue of
arbitrability.

In response to TMC's motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit in favor
of arbitration, Davis claimed that she had not entered into any
arbitration agreements.  This claim "necessarily included the
delegation provision, which is simply an additional, antecedent
agreement to arbitrate."  The Fourth Circuit therefore concludes
that Davis sufficiently attacked the validity of the delegation
provision and that the district court did not err when it
considered the issue of arbitrability.

TMC next argues that -- even if the district court had the
authority to decide arbitrability -- it should only have done so
following a jury trial.

The Fourth Circuit disagrees.  It opines that TMC is correct that
an arbitration agreement need not always be signed and that, under
North Carolina law, continued employment after receiving notice of
a dispute resolution plan can signify acceptance of that plan.
However, TMC admits that, in the instant case, it instructed its
employees not that it was instituting a general dispute resolution
plan that would become effective on a date certain but, instead,
that the employees were required to sign and return individual
arbitration agreements.

The Fourth Circuit therefore agrees with the district court's
assessment that -- even accepting as true TMC's version of events
-- Davis' continued employment did not constitute acceptance of
TMC's offer because there was no mutual assent.  Accordingly, the
district court properly denied TMC's request for a jury trial
because TMC did not establish any genuine issues of material fact
regarding the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's order.  It
dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before it and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 7, 2021 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4cpf672y from Leagle.com.

Matthew J. Hoffer -- Matt@BradShaferLaw.com -- SHAFER & ASSOCIATES,
P.C., in Lansing, Michigan; Joseph L. Ledford --
josephlledford@yahoo.com -- in Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant.

Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@gibbonsleis.com -- Craig L. Leis,
Geoffrey A. Marcus, GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC, in Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Wins Dismissal of Amended Harris Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAZMINE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similar situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20 C 4355 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, grants Topco's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Plaintiff Harris purchased Defendant Topco's Infants' Pain & Fever
Acetaminophen for her baby under the assumption that the product
was specifically formulated for infants, only to learn that it has
the same ingredient and concentration of acetaminophen contained in
Topco's Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen.

Topco is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal
place of business located in Elk Grove Village, Illinois.  It
operates as a strategic sourcing company that provides procurement,
quality assurance, packaging, and other services for its food
industry member-owners and customers.  Its brands include Top
Care(R), which offers products such as over-the-counter ("OTC")
drugs and first-aid, including a brand of pain reliever and fever
reducer under the "TopCare(R)" label for the Infants' and
Children's Products.

Harris resides in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and has purchased the
Infants' Products for approximately one year. S he first purchased
the Infants' Product for her then one-year old child at Giant
Eagle, a Topco member-owner store located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

Harris now bring the putative class action alleging that Topco
designed its products to mislead a parent into purchasing the
Infants' Product at a higher cost.  Her complaint alleges
violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. Section 201-1 et seq., and
unjust enrichment.

Topco moves to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et
seq., expressly preempts Harris' claims.  Alternatively, it argues
that Harris has not adequately pleaded the elements of her state
law claims.

Analysis

Topco fist argues that Section 379r(a) of the FDCA expressly
preempts Harris' state law claims because they seek to enforce new
labeling requirements.  Harris responds that Topco has not
identified a federal requirement that could differ from the claims
at issue and so FDCA preemption does not apply.

Harris first argues that her claims are consistent with, not
different from, the FDCA requirements because they are premised on
the theory that the Infants' Product labels are false and
misleading, and the FDCA specifically prohibits "labeling that is
false or misleading."

Judge Ellis opines that Harris misses the points of preemption as
her claims are based on the labeling of the products themselves,
not on a legal theory.  And, looking at the amended complaint, the
crux of Harris' claims would require Topco to label its products in
a particular way, as she seeks to impose "clear disclosures that
there is no pharmacological distinction between 'Infant's Product'
and 'Children's Product.'

The Judge explains that the FDA regulates Topco's Infants' and
Children's Products pursuant to the 1988 Tentative Final Monograph
("TFM") that governs the marketing of OTC drugs.  The TFM includes
requirements for disclosures and mandatory labeling of
acetaminophen products.  Harris argues, however, that, due to its
tentative nature, the TFM does not have the force of law and no
controlling final monograph exists that concerns acetaminophen
products.

The cases Harris cites were decided before the enactment of the
CARES Act in 2020.  And the CARES Act has deemed the TFM to have
the force of law as a final monograph, providing that tentative
monographs for Category I drugs, including acetaminophen, are final
administrative orders.  Because the Judge finds the TFM sets forth
federal labeling requirements for acetaminophen products based on
the CARES Act, she proceeds to consider whether the amended
complaint states a violation of those requirements so as to allow
Harris to avoid FDCA preemption.

The Judge finds that Harris' state law claims assert that, in
distributing, marketing, advertising, and labeling the Infants'
Products, Topco failed to make material disclosures, including a
disclosure notifying consumers that Infants' Products are the same
as the Children's Products.  As stated, the equitable relief she
seeks is an injunction to provide "clear disclosures that there is
no pharmacological distinction between 'Infant's Product' and
'Children's Product' and that the two products can be used
interchangeably in a manner that is safe to infants and children
alike."  All that the TFM requires is that labeling of the product
contains on the display panel either the word children's and the
trade name of the product, or the trade name followed by "for
Children."

Topco is only arguing that, in accordance with the TFM, the
labeling states that the Infants' Product is simply safe for
infants.  And Harris is asking Topco to state more than that;
namely, that the Infants' Product is the same product as the
Children's Product.  Simply put, Harris is asking more than what
the TFM requires.  Because the TFM does not require any specific
disclaimers concerning infant products nor the interchangeability
of the two products at issue, Harris' claims are preempted because
she seeks to impose additional obligations on Topco not imposed by
the TFM.

Conclusion

Judge Ellis concludes that because Harris seeks to change the
labeling on the Infants' Product, the FDCA preempts her state law
claims.  Therefore, the Judge grants Topco's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fym66dne from Leagle.com.


TWO TOWNS: $246K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Winters Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD WINTERS and JAKE GRUBER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWO TOWNS
CIDERHOUSE, INC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00468-BAS-BGS (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' request to
award their counsel $246,250 in attorneys' fees and $7,376.66 in
costs.

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff Winters filed a putative class action
complaint for violations of California unfair competition law,
pursuant to Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. and
Sections 17500, et seq. against Two Towns.  The Plaintiff amended
that complaint twice, adding claims for a violation of California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq.
and a violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq., and adding Jake Gruber as a
named Plaintiff.

The gist of the allegations is that the Defendant intentionally
labeled its drink products with false and misleading claims that
they contain no artificial flavors when the products contained
artificial Malic Acid (DL-Malic Acid) instead of non-artificial
L-Malic Acid.

The Plaintiffs file an unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement.  The terms of the Settlement are summarized in
the Court's Order granting final approval filed simultaneously with
the Order.

The Plaintiffs' counsel also filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs and Incentive Award requesting $246,250 in attorneys' fees;
$7,907.96 reimbursement for costs; $250,000 for the costs of
administering the class, particularly for providing notice to the
class; and incentive awards of $5,000 for named Plaintiff Jake
Gruber and $7,500 for named Plaintiff Richard Winters.  The
Defendant does not oppose the request.

The Court held a hearing on the issue on May 10, 2021.  At the
hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel amended the cost request to
$7,376.66.

After reviewing the time sheets and considering the arguments of
the counsel both oral and written, Judge Bashant concludes that the
requested amounts are reasonable.  First, the lodestar calculation
supports the 25% award in the case.  Second, the requested amount
of costs is appropriate.  Third, the incentive fees for the two
named Plaintiffs in the amount of $7,500 for Richard Winters and
$5,000 for Jake Gruber are also appropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Bashant grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards.  She grants the
Plaintiffs' request that the Court awards the Plaintiffs' counsel
$246,250 in attorneys' fees, $7,376.66 in costs, $250,000 for the
settlement administrator P&N for administering the class and
providing notice, and incentive awards of $7,500 for named
Plaintiff Richard Winters and $5,000 for named Plaintiff Jake
Gruber.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/uv9x62f6 from Leagle.com.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Cattle Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re
Cattle Antitrust Litigation, is pending.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.


Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders
have now been transferred to the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019.


The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which
the court granted on September 28, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On February 18, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaints.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the  consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation.  

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels."

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share
detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation
below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs contend these alleged
acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section
202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.

The company  and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied on January 6, 2020.

Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints
in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and
California. On October 6, 2020, the named plaintiffs in the
Oklahoma action filed a motion with the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all
actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On December 15, 2020, the JPML granted the plaintiffs' motion and
consolidated all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The parties are now conducting discovery.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Discovery in Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated putative class action suit related to the alleged
fixing of the rate of wages for non-supervisory production and
maintenance workers.

On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional
complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily
Earnest.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits were filed by
individuals making similar allegations, and others may do so in the
future. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint
containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing
plants and named additional defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On
September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and
certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint
improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court
otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and sustained
claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange
information against five other defendants.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
to address the impermissible group pleading. On October 16, 2020,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reasserting their
claims.

On December 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in
the second amended complaint. On March 10, 2021, the court denied
the defendants' motion.

On April 7, 2021, the company and the other defendants answered the
second amended complaint.

The parties are now conducting discovery.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UMG RECORDINGS: Underpays Royalties to Artists, Marks Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-04043 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract, account stated, fraud,
accounting, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and violation of the California's Business & Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of underreporting international streaming revenues to the
Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant is contractually
required to pay artists a portion of the international revenue it
receives from the exploitation of the Plaintiff and Class Members'
artistic works from digital streaming. The Defendant has not been
paying the Plaintiff and Class Members royalties based on all of
the revenues received by the Defendant's foreign affiliates.
Rather, the Defendant has been paying them based on a reduced
amount of the international royalties received by its foreign
affiliates, the suit alleges.

UMG Recordings, Inc. is a music company with its principal place of
business in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
         Bobby Pouya, Esq.
         Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
         PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
         15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (818) 788-8300
         Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
         E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                 bpouya@pswlaw.com
                 mapearson@pswlaw.com

                - and –

         Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
         Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
         JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
         439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 975-1080
         Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
         E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                 djohnson@jjllplaw.com

                - and –

         Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
         Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
         KIESEL LAW LLP
         8648 Wilshire Boulevard
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 854-4444
         Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
         E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
                 ramirez@kiesel.law

UNITED AMERICAN: Parties Directed to File Case Status Update
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bailey v. United American
Security, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00257 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Nina Y. Wang entered an order:

   1. directing the parties to submit a Status Update on or before
      July 6, 2021 indicating whether the Parties have reached a
      resolution in this matter.

   2. vacating the scheduling conference set for June 16, 2021 and

      resetting for Aug. 11, 2021 at 10:00 AM;

The court says it will address the conditional certification
question if and when the Parties file their proposed FLSA notice
and consent form.  The Parties' Proposed Scheduling Order is due
Aug. 4, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United American provides security services.[CC]


UNITED STATES NAVY: Torres Must File Class Status Bid by June 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned OSCAR D. TORRES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly v. THOMAS W. HARKER, UNITED STATES
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ACTING), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00306-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an order granting extension of time
to file Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until June 18,
2021.

The secretary of the Navy (or SECNAV) is a statutory officer and
the head (chief executive officer) of the Department of the Navy, a
military department within the United States Department of
Defense.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QvwDtP at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Accused of Gender Bias in Sport Programs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH LAZOR, GRACE JOHNSON, MAGDALENE MLYNEK, LAURA BRADDICK, EMILY
JONES, BAILEY HARRIS, MOLLY O'NEILL, TERESA NOBLES, EMMA PINCKNEY,
JOSEPHINE LUBY, GAYANE  GAVORKYAN, and JORDAN NANAI, Individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT, Case 3:21-cv-00583-JCH (D. Conn., April 28, 2021) is
a class action pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 challenging UConn's failure to provide equitable athletic
opportunities for its female students, benefits and treatment and
athletic financial assistance to its female athletes, including
UConn's announced decision to eliminate the women's rowing team --
a viable female sport team, with a successful history and strong
support.

The complaint alleges that UConn discriminates on the basis of sex
by, among other things, providing male students with a greater
opportunity to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics
than it provides to female students and by providing superior
treatment and benefits and financial assistance to male athletes
than to female athletes. This sex discrimination violates Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiffs are students at University of Connecticut and are
members of the university's women's varsity rowing team.

University of Connecticut is a public university of higher
education located in Storrs, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Felice M. Duffy, Esq.
          Duffy Law, LLC
          129 Church Street, Suite 310
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Tel.: (203)946-2000
          Email: felice@duffylawct.com

                    - and -

          James C. Larew, Esq.
          Claire M. Diallo, Esq.
          504 E. Bloomington St.
          Iowa City, IA 52245
          Tel: 319.337.7079
          Email: James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com
                 Claire.Diallo@LarewLawOffice.com


UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA: Johnson Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, on behalf of the University of Tampa Defined
Contribution Plan, individually and as a representative of a class
of participants and beneficiaries v. UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA,
Defendant, Case 8:21-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2021) is
brought against the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the action seeks to protect the
retirement savings of more than 1,400 University of Tampa employees
who are participants in the University's retirement Plan. The
University has a fiduciary duty to ensure that its retirement Plan
does not charge excessive fees to Plan participants. The complaint
alleges that over the past six years, Plan participants have paid
at least an estimated $3 million in administrative fees. The fees
are more than 10 times what they should be. The fees are grossly
excessive and Plan participants will continue to pay grossly
excessive fees unless the action moves forward, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff Johnson is a former employee of the University of Tampa,
but a current participant in the Plan.

The University of Tampa is a private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian
institution of higher learning with its principal place of business
in Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Direct: 813-337-7992
          Main: 813-224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

                    - and -

          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          E-mail: mckay@mckay.law


VERVENT INC: Seeks Continuance of Class Cert. Briefing Dates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODY ALIFF, MARIE SMITH,
HEATHER TURREY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. VERVENT, INC. fka FIRST ASSOCIATES LOAN SERVICING,
LLC; ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC; DAVID JOHNSON; CHRISTOPHER SHULER;
LAWRENCE CHIAVARO; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, Case No.
3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D. Calif.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting a moderate continuance of the class
certification discovery and briefing dates.

The parties request the continued dates be set by the Court at the
telephonic discovery conference discussing the production issues
and a timeline to complete outstanding class certification
discovery.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oybuM3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/338-1100
          Facsimile: 619/338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          John J. Grogan, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
                  jgrogan@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
          685 Spring Street, Suite 104
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378-6496
          Facsimile: (360) 378-6498
          E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          John S. Purcell, Esq.
          Douglas E. Hewlett, Jr.
          ARENT FOX LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 629-7400
          Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
          E-mail: john.purcell@arentfox.com
                  douglas.hewlett@arentfox.com

VISA INC: Barry's Cut Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY'S CUT RATE STORES
INC., et al., v. VISA, INC., Case No. 1:05-md-01720-MKB-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs include DDMB, INC. d/b/a EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR; DDMB
2, LLC d/b/a EMPORIUM LOGAN SQUARE; BOSS DENTAL CARE; RUNCENTRAL,
LLC; CMP CONSULTING SERV., INC.; TOWN KITCHEN, LLC d/b/a TOWN
KITCHEN & BAR; GENERIC DEPOT 3, INC. d/b/a PRESCRIPTION DEPOT; and
PUREONE, LLC d/b/a SALON PURE.

The Defendants include MASTERCARD INCORPORATED; MASTERCARD
INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BA MERCHANT
SERVICES LLC (f/k/a DEFENDANT NATIONAL PROCESSING, INC.); BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE;
BARCLAYS FINANCIAL CORP.; CAPITAL ONE BANK, (USA), N.A.; CAPITAL
ONE F.S.B.; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CHASE BANK USA,
N.A.; CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.; CHASE PAYMENTECH SOLUTIONS,
LLC; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; CITIBANK
(SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.; CITIBANK N.A.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITICORP; and
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in Foster City, California, United
States. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the
world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards
and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 4, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QwQUPK at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
          Chad B. Holtzman, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave., 29 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
                  delman@gelaw.com
                  Steve D. Shadowen

               - and -

          D. Sean Nation, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          2407 S Congress Ste E 122
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
          sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Nichols Brings Certiorari Petition to Sup. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Nichols filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
Stephen Nichols, Petitioner vs. Wayne County, Michigan, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 20-1493, filed on April 26, 2021.

Response is due May 26, 2021.

Mr. Nichols petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the case titled STEPHEN NICHOLS, Plaintiffs-Appellant v.
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN PROSECUTOR’S
OFFICE; CITY OF LINCOLN PARK, MICHIGAN; KYM L. WORTHY,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1056.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Stephen Nichols, Adam Chappell, Jr., and Ryan Chappell filed a
putative class action complaint naming as defendants the County of
Wayne, "the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office," the Wayne County
Prosecutor Kym Worthy in her official and individual capacity, the
"Wayne County Sheriff's Office," and the City of Lincoln Park. The
complaint alleged municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and sought declaratory
and injunctive relief. A few months after it was filed, two of the
three named Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims and they,
along with the "Sheriff's Office," were terminated from the case.
This left Wayne County, "the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office," Kym
Worthy, and the City of Lincoln Park as Defendants in the case.

The facts underlying remaining Plaintiff Nichols' claim are as
follows. Stephen Nichols, while driving an automobile, was pulled
over by a Lincoln Park police officer and ticketed for driving an
uninsured vehicle. He presented an invalid insurance certificate to
the officer and his car was confiscated under the forfeiture
provisions of Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act (MITPA). He
filed a claim of interest and posted a bond to contest the
forfeiture. Wayne County failed to file a civil forfeiture case
against the vehicle and Nichols' car was not returned to him until
he filed this lawsuit. He is challenging the process of the
county's seizure and forfeiture procedure.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that Wayne County's liability arises
here from a "policy, practice, custom or pattern of not providing
these hearings" and in a failure to train attorneys to conduct
them. It is undisputed that Defendants do not routinely provide
post-deprivation, pre-forfeiture hearings for civil seizures. Wayne
County argued that this "policy" is merely its compliance with
Michigan's forfeiture statute. The statute does not require such a
hearing and has been found constitutional by both Michigan state
courts and federal courts.

Defendants argue that their lack of routine post-deprivation,
pre-forfeiture hearings for civil seizures does not constitute a
due process violation.

The Sixth Circuit held that Wayne County's "policy" of not
providing an additional hearing does not violate due process.
Because the forfeiture procedure Wayne County follows, as Plaintiff
alleged, provides both notice and an opportunity to be heard,
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

Furthermore, Plaintiff's sole claim and argument against Defendant
City of Lincoln Park is identical to that against Wayne County. As
Plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the argument in its
Response to the other Defendants' Motion and there is no relevant
factual or legal distinction between the claim against the City of
Lincoln Park and Wayne County, the court will dismiss the claim
with respect to the City of Lincoln Park as well, ruled the Sixth
Circuit. Accordingly, Defendants' motion was granted and
Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed as to all Defendants.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Stephen Nichols is represented by:

          Mahesha Padmanabhan Subbaraman, Esq.
          SUBBARAMAN PLLC
          222 S. 9th St., Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: mps@subblaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Bruno FLSA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank NA filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA BRUNO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK N.A. Defendant, Case No. 2-19-cv-00587, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Sandra Bruno and Opt-In Plaintiffs (Joao Jacinto, Timothy
Hollingsworth, Sharon Austin, Stanley Sobieski, William Hutchinson,
and Alan DiGiovanni) (collectively, "Plaintiffs") sought collective
certification of Home Mortgage Consultants who work or have worked
as HMCs for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. nationwide since May
17, 2016, based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Order
dated April 20, 2021, wherein its expedited motion to stay the
deadline for production of contact information for Home Mortgage
Consultants, or, alternatively, arbitration HMCs 133, was granted
in part and denied in part.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank
NA, Case No. 21-8023, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, filed on April 30, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner WELLS FARGO BANK NA is represented by:

          Robert J. Carty, Jr., Esq.
          John P. Phillips, Esq.
          Timothy M. Watson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 860-0059
          E-mail: twatson@seyfarth.com  

               - and -

          Anshel J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Gina R. Merrill, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-5500
          E-mail: akaplan@seyfarth.com
                  gmerrill@seyfarth.com  

               - and -

          Shelly R. Pagac, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-4343
          E-mail: SRP@Pietragallo.com

Plaintiff-Respondent SANDRA BRUNO, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq.
          100 First Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375  

               - and -

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Junk Ferris Putative Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts Limited  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative securities class action suit initiated by John V.
Ferris and Joann M. Ferris remains pending.

On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.

On April 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted on May 27, 2020, with leave to amend.

On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On August 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which is pending decision from the court.

The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the
claims pleaded against them.

Wynn Resorts said, "These actions are in preliminary stages and
management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is
currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of
these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any."

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

Wynn Resorts Limited owns and operates destination casino resorts.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


ZB NA: Evans Must File Class Certification Bid by May 23
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RONALD C. EVANS, an
individual; JOAN M. EVANS, an individual; DENNIS TREADAWAY, an
individual; and all others similarly situated, v. ZB, N.A., a
national banking association, dba California Bank & Trust,  Case
No. 2:17-cv-01123-WBS-DB (E.D. Calif., Filed May 26, 2017), the
Hon. Judge William B. Schubb entered an order continuing deadlines
as follows:

   a. All experts must disclosed, and all reports on all issues,
      including liability, damages, and class certification, must
      be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before January 26, 2022;

   b. Discovery on all issues, including depositions for
      preservation of testimony, must be completed by March 28,
      2022;

   c. All motions, including motions for summary judgment or
      partial summary judgment and including motions for class
      certification, must be filed on or before May 23, 2022;

   d. The remaining provisions of the Status Order shall remain;
      and

   e. The Court shall conduct a further Scheduling Conference in
      Courtroom 5 (WBS) on April 11, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. A joint
      status report shall be filed no later than March 28, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v2zQjk at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated,
are:

          Robert L. Brace, Esq.
          HOLLISTER & BRACE
          1807 Santa Barbara St.
          Website: www.hbsb.com
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1054
          Telephone: (805) 845-8211
          E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer

The Defendant Zion Bancorporation, N.A., a national banking
association, formerly known as ZB, N.A., doing business as
California Bank & Trust is represented by:

          Robert S. Addison, Jr., Esq.
          C. Dana Hobart, Esq.
          Mancy Pendergrass, Esq.
          Robert S. McWhorter, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Osborne-Revis, Esq.
          BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation
          1000 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1500
          LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213)-891-0700
          Facsimile: (213)-896-0400
          E-mail: raddison@buchalter.com
                  dhobart@buchalter.com
                  mpendergrass@buchalter.com

The Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants, JTS Communities, Inc., a
California Corporation, Larry A. Carter, an individual; Jack T.
Sweigart, an individual and Bristol Insurance Company, a dissolved
Utah corporation, are:

          Ian W. Craig, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF IAN W. CRAIG, PC
          641 Fulton Ave, Ste 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825-4869
          Telephone: (916) 277-8580
          Facsimile: (916) 277-8580
          E-mail: Admin@iwc-law.com

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants, JTS Communities, Inc., a
California Corporation, Larry A. Carter, an individual; Jack T.
Sweigart, an individual and Bristol Insurance Company, a dissolved
Utah corporation, are:

          Glenn W. Peterson, Esq.
          PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP
          2267 Lava Ridge Ct Ste 210
          Roseville, CA 95661-4276
          Telephone: (916) 780-8222
          Facsimile: (916) 780-8775
          E-mail: gpeterson@petersonwatts.com


                            *********

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 ***