/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 27, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 100

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Owens Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Hill Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: James Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Lancaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Morgan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Porter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACADIA PHARMA: Faces Marechal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ALL-PRO BAIL: Dominguez Sues over Bail Bond Notice Requirement
ALTERYX INC: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Inside Sales Reps

ALTITUDE GROUP: Court Tosses Carango Class Claims without Prejudice
AMDOCS LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
APPLE INC: Faces UK Class Lawsuit Over iOS App Store Services
ARCIMOTO INC: Liable to 6.56% Drop of Stock Price, Gibson Alleges
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Plymouth County Sues Over Drop in Share Price

ASWAD & INGRAHAM: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
AXCESS STAFFING: Wilbourn Loses Bid to Certify Class
BANK OF AMERICA: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to June 3
BAYER AG: Faces Class Action Over Products' Alleged Side Effects

BETTERCLOUD INC: Underpays ADRs, Ardaix et al. Suit Claim
BEY UNITED: Yu Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Davis Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
BUCKEYE GROUP: Ryan Claims Shortchanged from Merger Deal
CANAAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline

CANTINA SFORZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHENG DU: Counsel Supports Liu Collective Action Status Bid
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Faces Phillips Suit Over Stock Price Drop
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action

CONOPCO INC: Fischer MMPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CREDIT SUISSE: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
DIVERSIFIED HEALTH: Pierce Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Removes Oszcepinski Suit to N.D. Illinois
DUE LTD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ochoa Suit Alleges

EQT CORPORATION: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due July 23
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Wilkinson Suit Over Illegal Internet Gambling
FIBROGEN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
FMC CARSWELL: Norman Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
FRONTIER UTILITIES: Frey TCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Retirees Sue Over Reduced Retirement Benefits
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Bryan Suit Says
GFL ENVIRONMENTAL: Sheppard BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Landmark UK Suit Over Alleged iPhone Tracking
HEALTH FIRST: Colucci Sues Over Monopoly for Acute Care Market

HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Suit Over Drop in Share Price
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Alleges
JUUL LABS: N.Y. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill.
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
KLAUSNER LUMBER: Additional Time to File Class Status Bid Sought
KPMG INT'L: Can't Get Out of Suit Filed by Miller Energy Investors

LIFEMD INC: Faces Owens Securities Suit Over Price Share Drop
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Fifth Securities Class-Action Lawsuit Filed
LOUISIANA: Denial of Discovery Continuance in Lillie Suit Affirmed
MAPLES LONG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Response
MASTER MOBILELINK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mashburn Claims

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Ferjani Suit Seeks to Proceed as Collective Action
MDL 2972: Bid to Remand Peterson Customer Data Breach Suit Denied
MILLIMAN INC: Bid for Protective Order in Healy Suit Partly Granted
MYLAN NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Meyer Suit Alleges

NEW HAVEN: Finalizes Settlement Over Lead Poisoning Class Lawsuit
OBJECTSHQ LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Fischler Says
PARAGON METALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roberts Suit Alleges
PAVILIONS MARKET: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Associates' Unpaid Wages
PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing

PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing Underway in Canada
PERSONNEL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sala Claims
PERSPECTA INC: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Peraton
PHOENIX HOUSES: Underpays Residential Counselors, Ahrens Suit Says
POMIDORO INC: Romeo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

PRIMERICA INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Naveja Class Suit
PURECYCLE TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
REGINA'S FAMILY: Zenteno Suit Seeks OT Wages for Kitchen Workers
ROLLER BEARING: Robles Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California

ROMEO POWER: Faces Nichols Securities Suit Over Shares Price Drop
SHELL LAKE: Coetzee Suit Seeks CNAs' Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHELL OIL: Kurimski Sues Over Deceptive Gasoline Pricing Scheme
SKILLZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds on July 7 Deadline

STATE FARM: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due July 30
STREET INSIDER: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Suit Alleges
TD AMERITRADE: July 6 Deadline for Class Certification Bid Reply
TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes
THORNE RESEARCH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Kiler Suit Says

UNION BANK: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Friedly Claims
UNITED STATES: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Driever v. BOP Denied
UNITED STATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Protect Students From Sexual Abuse
VIRGINIA: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Unemployment Benefits

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 29 Deadline
WESTDALE BRENTMOOR: $1.8M Class Deal in Medina Suit Wins Final OK
YAMASHITA RUBBER: 6th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Enforce Judgments
YOH SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Owens Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01457-RMG (D.S.C., May 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Hill Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
BERTRAND HILL, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01501-RMG (D.S.C., May 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff sustained damage and injury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Herman Hill, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01379-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: James Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis William James, Sr., and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01380-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Lancaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------
Rodney William Lancaster, and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01383-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, says the complaint.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Morgan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Lafayette Morgan, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01384-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Porter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Porter, Jr., and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01385-RMG
(D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ACADIA PHARMA: Faces Marechal Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MARECHAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., STEPHEN R. DAVIS, and
ELENA H. RIDLOFF, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-NLS (S.D. Calif.,
April 19, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia securities between June
15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials.

In April 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approved pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and
delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. In June
2020, Acadia submitted a supplemental New Drug Application ("sNDA")
with the FDA to expand pimavanserin's label to include treatment
for dementia-related psychosis (the "pimavanserin sNDA").

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the materials submitted
in support of the pimavanserin sNDA contained statistical and
design deficiencies.

On March 8, 2021, post-market, Acadia issued a press release
providing a regulatory update on the pimavanserin sNDA, disclosing
"that the Company received a notification from the [FDA] on March
3, 2021, stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the
Company's [sNDA], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." Acadia advised that "[t]he notification does not
specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA and there has been
no clarification by the FDA at this time."

On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $20.76 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021.

Then, on April 5, 2021, pre-market, Acadia issued a press release
announcing that 17 the Company had received a Complete Response
Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the pimavanserin sNDA
could not be approved in its current form. Specifically, the press
release stated that, "the [FDA Division of Psychiatry], in the CRL,
cited a lack of statistical significance in some of the subgroups
of dementia, and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less
common dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of
effectiveness to support approval."

On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%,
to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages

The Plaintiff acquired Acadia securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that
address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders.
The Company is developing pimavanserin as a treatment for
dementia-related psychosis and as an adjunctive treatment for
schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive treatment for major
depressive disorder. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

ALL-PRO BAIL: Dominguez Sues over Bail Bond Notice Requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAKLY DOMINGUEZ and GRACE DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL-PRO BAIL BONDS,
INC., BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and BANKERS SURETY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 21 CV381 890 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
May 14, 2021) is an action alleging that the Defendant failed to
provide the required notice to cosigners of bail bond agreements
apprising such cosigners of the significant risks of cosigning such
consumer credit contracts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class cosigned
as guarantors on credit bail agreements issued by the Defendants,
A11-Pro Bail Bonds, Inc., and its associated surety, Bankers
Insurance Company and Bankers Surety Services, Inc. on May 25, 2017
(the "Class Period"). Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
persistently, systematically, and pervasively violated California
Civil Code by failing t0 provide the required notice therein.

During the Class Period, All-Pro has allegedly used its
unenforceable credit bail agreements to make illegitimate demands
for significant sums of money and to illegitimately extract
significant sums of money, typically from those least able to
afford it. In the aggregate, All-Pro has used its unenforceable
credit bail agreements to make illegitimate demands for and to
illegitimately extract huge sums of money during the Class Period.
As a result of the above California Civil Code Violations, the
Defendants committed unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business
practices, the suit contends.

All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc. operates as a bail agency. The Company
provides bail bonds and credit finance services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          11780 W Sample Rd., Suite 103
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  achemiak@hammondlawpc.com

ALTERYX INC: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Inside Sales Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT SMITH, TUAN PENG, and LINWOOD FULLAM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTERYX, INC., Case No.
508999/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., April 16, 2021) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who have worked for
Alteryx as exempt-classified inside salespeople (Inside Sales
Representatives)

While employed by Alteryx, the Plaintiffs and other Inside Sales
Representatives consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
and more than 8 hours per day without receiving overtime
compensation for all the hours they worked. Throughout the relevant
period, it was Alteryx's policy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their
earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders and
regulations of the California Industrial Welfare Commission, and
the California Unfair Business Practices Law, the suit alleges.

Alteryx sells a self-service data analytics platform to business
clients. Alteryx employs Inside Sales Representatives, such as
Plaintiffs, to make sales to current and prospective customers.

Alteryx is a software company with offices located in New York,
California, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ALTITUDE GROUP: Court Tosses Carango Class Claims without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CARANGO, et al.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE ALTITUDE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 9:21-cv-80148-DMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' individual claims are dismissed with
      prejudice.

   2. The Plaintiffs' class claims are dismissed without
prejudice.

   3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

   4. any pending motions are denied as moot.

   5. each Party shall bear its own costs.

Bbefore the Court upon the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal,
filed on May 5, 2021. The Court congratulates the Parties on their
amicable resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago
Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012), the
Parties' Stipulation is self-executing and no Order of the Court is
required to dismiss this action.

Altitude Group was founded in 2008. The company's line of business
includes the practice of general or specialized medicine and
surgery for various licensed practitioners.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bOyhhG at no extra charge.[CC]

AMDOCS LIMITED: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Amdocs Limited (DOX)
Class Period: 12/13/2016 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 8, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-amdocs-limited-securities-litigation-1

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces UK Class Lawsuit Over iOS App Store Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wilson at kitguru.net reports that as we all know,
currently Apple is under fire on several fronts for
'anti-competitive' practices with its iOS App Store policies. Apple
is already dealing with a lawsuit from Epic Games, an antitrust
case from the EU and now, we can add a UK class-action lawsuit to
the list as well.

A class action lawsuit against Apple was filed in the UK. As
reported by GI.biz, the lawsuit seeks compensation for customers
who have been 'over charged' for apps and services due to Apple's
30 percent revenue cut. The lawsuit takes the angle that a majority
of developers are forced to charge more for content on iOS due to
the cut that Apple takes.

Anyone who has owned an iPhone or iPad since October 2015, and has
made at least one App Store purchase, may be entitled to
compensation, according to Hausfeld, the legal firm behind the
class-action suit. Estimates indicate that up to 19.6 million iOS
users could have been affected, which means Apple could face total
damages of up to £1.5 billion.

This lines up with the UK's competition and markets authority
launching its own investigation into Apple's business practices,
although no conclusions have been revealed on that front just yet.
[GN]

ARCIMOTO INC: Liable to 6.56% Drop of Stock Price, Gibson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCIMOTO INC., MARK FROHNMAYER, and DOUGLAS
M. CAMPOLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02870 (E.D.N.Y., May 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning Arcimoto's business, operational and
financial results in order to artificially inflate prices of
Arcimoto securities between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the preorders of
Arcimoto's Fun Utility Vehicles (FUVs) were fabricated or never
completed, with only 19 units delivered out of an alleged preorder
of 422; (ii) Arcimoto failed to disclose to customers that nearly
100% of its vehicles delivered were under safety recall; (iii)
Arcimoto's largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related
party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC; (iv) Arcimoto's
partnership with HULA Holdings was an undisclosed related party
transaction; and (v) as a result, the Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, Arcimoto's stock price fell $1.10 per
share, or approximately 6.56%, to close at $15.67 per share on
March 23, 2021, damaging investors, the suit says.

Arcimoto Inc. is an electric vehicle company headquartered in
Eugene, Oregon. [BN]

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

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Plymouth County Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., ATI INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, JIM FUSARO, NIPUL PATEL, TROY
ALSTEAD, ORLANDO D. ASHFORD, FRANK CANNOVA, RON P. CORIO, BRAD
FORTH, PETER JONNA, JASON LEE, ATI INVESTMENT PARENT, LLC, OAKTREE
ATI INVESTORS, L.P., OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, L.P.,
OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV (PARALLEL), L.P., GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.,
JOHNSON RICE & COMPANY L.L.C., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, PIPER
SANDLER & CO., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04390 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021) alleges violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendants made no
mention in the IPO Materials, the December 2020 SPO Materials, and
the March 2021 SPO Materials (the "Offerings") submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission any issues revolving around,
inter alia, material negative impacts of rising steel and freight
costs on its operations. Furthermore, subsequent to the Offerings
during the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly and consistently
painted a materially misleading picture of the Company's business
and prospects that did not reflect these rising costs. After the
Offerings, and subsequent to the Class Period, Array disclosed that
it was experiencing increases in steel prices and substantial
increases in the cost of both ocean and truck freight that in turn
were having a material impact on its margins for the foreseeable
future. This caused Array to miss profit expectations and withdraw
its full-year outlook.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Array Technologies, Inc. designs and manufactures solar tracking
systems. The Company offers solar tracking equipment to utilities,
corporations, small businesses, and homeowners. Array Technologies
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

               -and-

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          1 Lincoln Street
          Boston, Massachusetts 02111
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
          E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com

ASWAD & INGRAHAM: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON CHOI, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. ASWAD &
INGRAHAM, LLP, Case No. 2:19-cv-17695-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the parties' Class
      Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate,
      and in the best interests of the Settlement Class;
      
   2. approving the parties' proposed Notice and the Notice Plan
      (including the form, content, manner and timing of the notice

      to the settlement class) and authorizing the Notice to be
      distributed in accordance with the Notice Plan;

   3. setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) ("the Fairness

      Hearing") after the Notice period has expired so that the
      Court can consider any objections to the settlement; payment

      by the Defendant of Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs and

      the proposed incentive payment to the Class Representative;
      and can approve the Class Settlement; and

   4. granting such other and further relief as may be just and
      proper.

Aswad & Ingraham is a general practice firm engaging in the
practice of law before all courts and agencies including Civil
Litigation and Appellate Practice.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ffQOFt at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Nicholas Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  nl@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Iram Pagan Valentin, Esq.
          David J. Gittines, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK
          25 Main Street, Suite 500
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201)-488-6655
          E-mail: ivalentin@kdvlaw.com
                  dgittines@kdvlaw.com

ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) between December 1, 2020
through May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Aterian 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 Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.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 July 12, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aterian's organic growth is
plummeting; (2) Aterian's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were
overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (3)
Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed
product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses rebate
programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their product
offerings; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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


AXCESS STAFFING: Wilbourn Loses Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA WILBOURN, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AXCESS STAFFING SERVICES, LLC and COWORX STAFFING SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04686-LMM-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh
Martin May entered an order that:

   1. The Defendants' objections to non-final report and
      recommendation are sustained in part and overruled as moot in

      part.

   2. The Defendants' objections to the Magistrate Judge's
      recommendation regarding standing and typicality are
      sustained.

   3. The Plaintiff has not carried her burden to prove these
      elements of Rule 23 certification, and so the Court declines

      to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation
      (R&R).

   4. The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied.

   5. The Defendants' remaining objections are overruled as moot.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated provisions of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when they obtained her
consumer report. She alleges that she applied for a job with
Axcess. In so doing, she authorized Axcess to obtain her consumer
repor.Instead directed CoWorx to obtain the report. Since Axcess
never told Plaintiff that CoWorx was obtaining her report,
Plaintiff alleges that Axcess violated the FCRA.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vliE99 at no extra charge.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to June 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAIRE DOUGLAS and MARY
JOAN ISABELL, individually, on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
association, Case No. 2:20-cv-00193-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge James L. Robart entered an order that the deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification shall
be extended from May 6, 2021 to June 3, 2021.

After Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on December 3, 2020,
the parties entered serious settlement discussions. To facilitate
those discussions, the parties jointly stipulated to the extension
of that deadline to April 22, 2021, which the Court approved in an
Order entered on January 11, 2021.

As settlement discussions continued fruitfully, the parties jointly
stipulated to the extension of the deadline to May 6, 2021, which
the Court approved in an Order entered on April 26, 2021. With a
handful of days left before the passage of that deadline, the
parties' counsel reached agreement on the language of proposed
settlement agreements (one primarily for the named Plaintiffs and
others for putative class members -- "claimants" -- not named as
Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint).

The Plaintiffs' counsel is in the process of reviewing these
agreements with plaintiffs and claimants. However, more time is
required for Plaintiffs’ counsel to review these separate
agreements (several of which are applicable to multiple plaintiffs
or claimants) fairly and adequately with each of their proposed
signatories.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wwQfNv at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
          Daniel S. Gross, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ
          SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: rick@sylaw.com
                  chris@sylaw.com
                  daniel@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Harrison, Esq.
          5400 California Avenue SW
          Seattle, WA 98136
          Telephone:  (206) 388-8092
          E-mail: eric@attorneywestseattle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly D. Folger, Esq.
          Garrett J. Williams, Esq
          PAINE HAMBLEN
          717 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 455-6000
          E-mail: kdf@painehamblen.com
                  gjw@painehamblen.com

BAYER AG: Faces Class Action Over Products' Alleged Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Vinall at The Australian reports that a group of women
suing a pharmaceutical giant for selling them contraceptive
implants they allege leached nickel and perforated their organs has
honed the scope of their argument.

The Slater and Gordon-led class action against Bayer was narrowed
in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with two defendants dropped and
two legal arguments removed.

The women allege the 'Essure' and 'Stop' implants caused a range of
horrific problems including chronic inflammation and bleeding, and
required some women to have their uteruses surgically removed via
hysterectomy.

Slater and Gordon practice group leader Rory Walsh said they were
representing hundreds of women and were open to bringing in anyone
who claims they were affected by the implant.

"It's open to any woman who had the Essure products inserted to
contact us and make inquiries about a claim," he said.

"It's a very significant piece of litigation."

Two defendants, Lake Region Medical and Integer Holdings
Corporation, were removed from the claim as their involvement in
the distribution of the devices had been misunderstood.

"The plaintiff sought to identify the necessary defendants," the
order from Justice John Dixon said.

"This task that was complicated as Essure devices were available
for use in Australia for almost 20 years and during that time
different companies were responsible for various aspects of the
products."

The arguments removed were that the Essure devices were not fit for
purpose and that their sale involved misleading and deceptive
conduct.

The women continue to allege that Bayer breached their duty of care
to prevent harm, that the devices were not of reasonable quality,
that they had a safety defect and that the women were owed
compensation.

The Essure devices were two spring-like metal coils inserted into
the fallopian tubes.

They expanded to a diameter of 2mm, causing tissue growth and
blocking the fallopian tube to prevent pregnancy.

They could only be removed by "surgically removing the fallopian
tubes or uterus", it is alleged.

Slater and Gordon claim the devices triggered a response in the
body to a foreign object, causing chronic inflammation, pain and
bleeding.

They allege there were cases where the metal coils migrated from
the spot they were inserted, broke and fragmented inside the body,
corroded, and leached nickel and other metals. [GN]


BETTERCLOUD INC: Underpays ADRs, Ardaix et al. Suit Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN ARDAIX, JUAN GABRIEL MARTIR, and ERIC RUVO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BETTERCLOUD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 511852/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
May 19, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid Account Development
Representatives' overtime compensation from the Defendant pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Account
Development Representatives (ADRs): Plaintiff Ardaix from
approximately August 2018 to April 2020; Plaintiff Martir from
approximately March 2019 to May 2020; and Plaintiff Ruvo from
approximately February 2019 to November 2019.

The Plaintiffs allege that despite consistently working in excess
of 40 hours per week, the Defendant willfully and intentionally
denied them overtime premiums at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek since they were classified as exempt from overtime.

On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated ADRs, the
Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and
other injunctive and equitable relief as the Court shall deem just
and proper.

Bettercloud, Inc. is a New York based software vendor that creates
SaaS management Software. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl. NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Tel: (207) 744-1407
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com


BEY UNITED: Yu Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
WEI JIE YU, SEE LIANG KWA, and, JOSHI DHARM RAJ, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. BEY UNITED, LLC d/b/a
Kotobuki d/b/a Kotobuki-Manhattan, BON KOO a/k/a Bon S. Koo, ALLEN
YEN, JASON KIM, and YOUNG KOO, Case No. 2:21-cv-02103 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 16, 2021) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising from the
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all worked over 40 each workweek.

Yu was employed by Defendants to work as a sushi chef at the
restaurant Kotobuki-Manhattan, 56 Third Avenue, New York. Kwa was
employed by the Defendants to work as a sushi chef at the
restaurants: Kotobuki-Roslyn, 1530 Old Northern Boulevard, Roslyn,
New York. Raj was employed by Defendants to work as a busser at
Kotobuki-Manhattan.

Entity Defendant is part of a chain of Kotobuki restaurants that
together had gross sales in excess of $500,000.00 per year during
the period relevant to this lawsuit. Kotobuki Restaurant, Inc.
operates Kotobuki-Hauppauge at 377 Nesconset Highway, Hauppauge,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Davis Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BJ'S RESTAURANTS, INC. and BJ'S RESTAURANT
OPERATIONS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01381 (D. Colo.,
May 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage
and Hour Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated restaurant employees the required minimum wage
due to illegal wage deduction and tip credit violation and failing
to reimburse business related expenses.

Ms. Davis worked for the Defendants as a waitress at the BJ's
Restaurant and Brewhouse located in Westminster, Colorado from
January 2019 to September 2019.

BJ'S Restaurants, Inc. is an owner and operator of a chain of
restaurants in the U.S. including Colorado.

BJ'S Restaurant Operations Company is an owner and operator of a
chain of restaurants in the U.S. including Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

                 - and –

         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Building, Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

BUCKEYE GROUP: Ryan Claims Shortchanged from Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Walter E. Ryan Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., Buckeye GP LLC,
Clark C. Smith, Peiter Bakker, Barbara M. Baumann, Barbara J.
Duganier, Joseph A. Lascala, Jr., Mark C. Mckinley, Larry C. Payne,
Oliver G. Richard, III, Frank S. Sowinski, Martin A. White, IFM
Investors Pty. Ltd., IFM Global Infrastructure Fund, Hercules
Intermediate Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0432 (D. Del.,
May 14, 2021), is a lawsuit filed over IFM Investors' acquisition
of Buckeye Partners.

On May 10, 2019, IFM and Buckeye announced they had entered into a
definitive agreement and plan of merger where Buckeye unitholders
would receive $41.50 in cash in exchange for each common unit of
Buckeye. In this "cash-out merger," the unitholders, who are all
limited partners of Buckeye, are paid cash for their partnership
interest. At the time of the announcement, the transaction was
valued at approximately $10.3 billion in enterprise value, $6.5
billion in equity.

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks redress for being cashed out
of their units in a transaction resulting from the pre-closing
manipulation of the company's finances, closing the merger in a way
intended to wrongfully evade $153 million in regular cash
distributions to unitholders, capture those and other post-closing
earnings and cause them to be taxed to the redeemed-out
unitholders.

Ryan identified that the transaction would result in unitholders
being taxed on more than $100 million in income that should be
distributed to them, but might rather be transferred to and kept by
the new owners of Buckeye, after the merger's consummation/closing.
Additionally, the transaction allegedly violates the duties
Defendants owed to Buckeye's cashed-out limited partners, who will
be taxed on more than $100 million for income that is allocated to
the cashed-out partners, but would actually be received by Hercules
Intermediate Holdings LLC and Hercules Merger Sub LLC, without
consideration.

Defendants are further accused of capturing and maximizing both the
cash and tax benefits for the Hercules Group, at the expense of the
cashed-out unitholders, by failing to disclose material facts about
the consequences of the closing, in particular, the tax
consequences to cashed-out unitholders; closing the merger
transaction on November 1, 2019 and asserting that closing date as
a basis for omitting the quarterly distribution for the September
30, 2019 quarter that would have been customarily declared by that
date; keeping, rather than distributing, the earnings for the
October 31 month; packing in undisclosed amounts of post-closing
income, resulting in an unexplained $1 billion in additional
post-closing unrealized receivables, depreciation recapture and
substantially appreciated inventory, all taxed as ordinary income
to the cashed-out limited partners and despite their obligation and
explicit commitment, to provide the underlying basis for the $1
billion in income; and wrongfully concealing the underlying facts
from inquiring partners, asserts the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
      Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      20 North Wacker Dr.
      Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 606-0500
      Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
             ken@krislovlaw.com
             chris@krislovlaw.com

             - and -

      Samuel B. Edwards, Esq.
      Ryan Cook, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, SMITH, EDWARDS & KANTAS, LLP
      1010 Lamar, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-2400
      Email: sedwards@sseklaw.com
             rcook@sseklaw.com

             - and -

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      Dean R. Roland, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Nemours Building
      1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
      P.O. Box 1680
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
      Tel: (302) 984-3800
      Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

CANAAN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Canaan Inc. (CAN)
Class Period: 2/10/2021 - 4/9/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 14, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-canaan-inc-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


CANTINA SFORZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CANTINA SFORZA LLC; RIZZI LLC
d/b/a VIA SFORZA TRATTORIA; DONATO SFORZA; MARIA SFORZA; and GIANNI
RIZZI, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00679 (D. Conn., May 15, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff.

Cantina Sforza, LLC is in the Italian Restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked and award-winning shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating whether ChemoCentryx, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CCXI) committed securities fraud. Investors who purchased
or acquired ChemoCentryx securities during the Class Period of
November 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021 may, no later than July 6, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class.

On May 4, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a
"Briefing Document" concerning ChemoCentryx's drug candidate
avacopan, which is in development for the treatment of adult
patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody vasculitis.
In this Briefing Document, the FDA wrote that its review team "has
identified several areas of concern, raising uncertainties about
the interpretability of the data" submitted as part of
ChemoCentryx's application, as well as concerns with "the clinical
meaningfulness of these results."

On this news, shares have plummeted by approximately 60% during
intraday trading on May 4, 2021. Investors who have lost money on
their Aterian investment - whether or not they have sold that
investment - are potentially eligible.

Labaton Sucharow is investigating the potential filing of a
securities class action lawsuit to attempt to recover losses on
behalf of investors who have lost money.

If you've lost money on your investment, please contact David J.
Schwartz using the toll-free number (800) 321-0476 or via email at
david@labaton.com.

                          About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.

Contact:

David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com [GN]


CHENG DU: Counsel Supports Liu Collective Action Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YI CHING LIU, a/k/a Shu
Jung Liu YUNG CHANG HSU, and XIAOLONG YANG on their own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CHENG DU 23 INC d/b/a
Cheng Du 23; and YONGYI JIANG a/k/a Robert Jiang, CHING XING LIN
a/k/a Kevin Lin, and MAO YAN LIN a/k/a CINDY LIN, Case No.
2:17-cv-12867-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), Atty. Aaron Schweitzer submits an
affirmation in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for an Order
granting collective action status pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b) for Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The putative class consists of the named Plaintiffs and all
nonexempt current and former employees of the Defendants who
performed work as non-exempt, non-managerial employees. Corporate
officers, shareholders, directors, administrative employees,
managers, and other customarily exempt employees are not part of
the defined class.

A copy of Atty. Schweitzer affirmation dated May 6, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bRYSdE at no
extra charge.[CC]

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

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

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Faces Phillips Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY PHILLIPS v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION IV, ATIEVA, INC.
d/b/a LUCID MOTORS, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN, and PETER
RAWLINSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-00539-ACA (N.D. Ala., April 16, 2021)
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Churchill Capital Corp IV
securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Companies and certain
of their top officials.

Between the January 11, 2021 Bloomberg article and the official
announcement of the merger on February 22, 2021 CCIV stock rocketed
from $10 to $57, or 470%. On February 23, 2021, following the
merger and never before revealed information from Rawlinson, the
stock plummeted to $35.21, a 38% decline. As of April 18, 2021,
CCIV was trading at $19.52 a share, a 66% decline from its February
22, 2021 high. Investor Place analyst Matt McCall said CCIV still
remains overvalued after a 60% plunge, the suit says.

Plaintiff Phillips purchased shares of CCIV common stock and has
been damaged thereby.

CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose
acquisition company (SPAC). A special purpose acquisition company
(SPAC) is a company that you can buy stock in that doesn't have an
underlying business. SPACs raise money that's then used to buy a
private company, effectively taking that company public while
avoiding the traditional IPO process. CCIV was formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses. CCIV is a "shell company"
as defined under the Exchange Act because it has no operations and
nominal assets consisting almost entirely of cash.

Lucid is an American automotive company specializing in electric
cars. The company was founded in 2007 by CEO Peter Rawlinson, and
is based in Newark, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite 815
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 482-5174
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
                  rcooks@winstoncooks.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Beeman, II, Esq.
          BEEMAN LAW FIRM
          P.O Box 253
          Helena, AL 35080
          Telephone: (205) 422-9015
          Facsimile: (800) 693-5150
          E-mail: rlbsportsmgnt12@att.net

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Alabama on
behalf of purchasers of Churchill Capital Corporation IV (NYSE:
CCIV) securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Phillips v.
Churchill Capital Corporation IV, No. 21-cv-00539, and is assigned
to Judge Annemarie C. Axon. The Churchill Capital IV class action
lawsuit charges Churchill Capital IV and certain of its executives
along with Atieva, Inc. d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid") and its Chief
Executive Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Churchill Capital IV securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Churchill
Capital IV 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 Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Churchill Capital IV
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Churchill
Capital IV class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Churchill Capital IV class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here or contact counsel, Juan
Carlos Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

Churchill Capital IV is a blank check company, also known as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). In April 2020,
defendant Michael Klein launched Churchill Capital IV, which raised
more than $2 billion in its initial public offering and is listed
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CCIV). Lucid is an American
automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of 2020 its
first car, Lucid Air, was in development. On January 11, 2021,
Bloomberg News reported that: "Electric vehicle maker Lucid Motors
Inc. [was] in talks to go public through a merger with one of
Michael Klein's special purpose acquisition companies, according to
people familiar with the matter." Bloomberg News further reported
that the transaction could be valued at up to $15 billion and that
"Churchill Capital Corp IV – the largest [of Klein's two SPACs],
having raised more than $2 billion last year – is the vehicle
considering a deal with Lucid, some of the people said." On
February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement between
Churchill Capital IV and Lucid was announced. Churchill Capital IV
and Lucid's transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill Capital IV's share price closed that day at
$57.37.

On February 23, 2021, Bloomberg News reported that the Lucid chief
executive officer announced that production of its debut car would
be delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for actual delivery of an actual vehicle. On this news,
the price of Churchill Capital stock fell by approximately 38%,
damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.

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.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210512005180/en/

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Juan Carlos Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CONOPCO INC: Fischer MMPA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PETER FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, DOES 1
through 10, Case No. 21SL-CC00339, was removed from the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on May 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00582-JMB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of warranty and
implied contract, and unjust enrichment in connection with the sale
of certain Dove brand Men + Care antiperspirants.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever, is a manufacturer of
personal care products, headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
         Douglas B. Maddock, Jr., Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         2555 Grand Boulevard
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 474-6550
         Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
         E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com
                 dmaddock@shb.com

CREDIT SUISSE: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Credit Suisse Group AG (CS)
Class Period: 10/29/2020 - 3/31/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 15, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-credit-suisse-group-ag-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

DIVERSIFIED HEALTH: Pierce Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULETTE PIERCE, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., and ALEXANDER S.
PHOMMASATHIT, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02624-EAS-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, May 19, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against
the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in or around 2011 in
the position of Home Health Aide and is still currently employed by
the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been consistently
working more than 40 hours per workweek and she received an
overtime premium at the rate of one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for all hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
However, in or around September 2020, the Defendants suddenly
refused to continue paying her and other similarly situated Home
Health Aide an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40
despite frequently working overtime hours. Defendant Phommasathit
told the Plaintiff, when she called in or around February 2021 and
complained about the company policy change, that the company was
not required to pay them overtime premiums due to state law, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs and expenses, attorney's fees, and other legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Diversified Health Management, Inc. provides home healthcare
services to individuals in multiple counties throughout Ohio.
Alexander S. Phommasathit is responsible for the Corporate
Defendant's business operations as the owner and operator,
including payroll policies and procedures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dryer, Esq.
          Kyle T. Anderson, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Tel: (614) 610-4134
          Fax: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com

DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Removes Oszcepinski Suit to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARIUSZ OSZCEPINSKI, on behalf of
JOZEFA OSZCZEPINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintff v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.; and BMO
HARRIS BANK, N.A., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook
(Case No. 2021-CH-01291) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 14, 2021.

The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. Case No. 1:21-cv-02621.

The company's line of business includes providing various business
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DUE LTD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ochoa Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
RMA OCHOA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUE LTD. D/B/A D'LATTE CAFE AND CLAUDIA
PURITA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02721 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ochoa was employed by the Defendant as cook.

DUE LTD. D/B/A D'LATTE CAFE AND CLAUDIA PURITA is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

EQT CORPORATION: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: EQT Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00754-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert J. Colville entered a first amended case management order as
follows:

   1. The deadline to amend the pleadings or add new parties was
      March 12, 2021.

   2. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by
      July 23, 2021.

   3. Plaintiffs' Expert Reports as to class certification were
      filed on April 2, 2021. Defendants' Expert Reports as to
      class certification are due on or before June 11, 2021.
      Plaintiffs may seek leave of Court, upon good cause shown, to

      file a Rebuttal Export Report, if warranted, by June 25,
      2021.

   4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum in
      Support, and all supporting evidence was filed on April 2,
      2021. Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Class
      Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by
      June 11, 2021.

   5. The parties shall complete fact discovery by March 15, 2022.

      All interrogatories, depositions and requests for admissions

      and/or production of documents shall be served within
      sufficient time to allow responses to be completed prior to
      the close of fact discovery.

   6. Plaintiffs' Expert Reports are due on or before April 1,
      2022. Defendants' Expert Reports are due on or before May 2,

      2022.

   7. A maximum of 20 depositions may be taken by each party,
      except upon application and for good cause shown.

   8. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by
      March 18, 2021. Discovery is not stayed pending ADR. |

   9. If a discovery dispute occurs, prior to filing any discovery

      motions, the parties shall first meet and confer in an
      attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter is still
      unresolved after meeting and conferring, then the parties
      shall jointly contact Chambers for purposes of scheduling a
      telephone conference with the Court.

EQT Corporation is an American energy company engaged in
hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. It is headquartered
in EQT Plaza in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vjEEAZ at no extra charge.[CC]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Wilkinson Suit Over Illegal Internet Gambling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN WILKINSON, NANCY URBANCZYK, and LAURA PERKINSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-02777
(N.D. Cal., April 16, 2021) is a class action complaint against
Facebook seeking restitution, damages, an injunction, and other
appropriate relief from Facebook's ongoing participation in an
illegal internet gambling enterprise.

Over the last decade, the world's leading slot machine makers --
companies like International Game Technology, Scientific Games
Corporation, and Aristocrat Leisure -- have teamed up with American
technology companies to develop a new product line: social
casinos.

Social casinos are apps, playable from smartphones, tablets, and
Internet browsers, that make the "authentic Vegas-style" experience
of slot machine gambling available to consumers anywhere and
anytime. By moving their casino games directly onto the phones and
computers of players, and by leveraging an innocuous-sounding
"free-to-play" model, social casino companies, along with Facebook,
Google, and Apple (the "Platforms"), have found a way to smuggle
slot machines into the homes of consumers nationwide, 14 hours a
day and 365 days a year, the suit alleges.

By allegedly utilizing Facebook for distribution and payment
processing, the social casinos entered into a mutually beneficial
business partnership. In exchange for distributing the casino
games, providing them valuable data and insight about their
players, and collecting money from consumers, Facebook (and the
other Platforms) take a 30 percent commission off of every wager,
earning them billions in revenue. By comparison, the "house" at a
traditional casino only takes 1-15 percent, while also taking on
significant risk of loss in its operation. Facebook's 22 percent
rake, on the other hand, is guaranteed for its ability to act as a
casino "host" and bankroll.

The Plaintiffs contend that the result (and intent) of this
dangerous partnership is that consumers become addicted to social
casino apps, maxing out their credit cards with purchases amounting
to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Consumers
addicted to social casinos suffer a variety of non-financial
damages ranging from depression to divorce to attempted suicide.

The Platforms, including Defendant Facebook, have directly assisted
in creating the unregulated market of virtual casino games from the
outset of the industry. Before gaining access to these social media
platforms, the Illegal Slots used methods like loyalty cards to
track data on how much gamblers spent, how frequently they played,
or how often they bet. The Platform partnerships upgraded their
business model to an in-app payment system and provided additional
user data which skyrocketed revenue by providing 4 them with access
to a whole new market of consumers, the Plaintiffs add.

Slot machines have long been outlawed in California. California law
recognizes that a device can be an illegal slot machine without
offering users the opportunity to win money. In fact, if a gaming
machine has the look and feel of a slot machine, accepts real money
for gameplay, and rewards a winning spin with an "additional chance
or right to use the slot machine or device," the device is an
illegal slot machine.

Facebook is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along with his
fellow roommates and students at Harvard College.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, 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
                  tlogan@edelson.com
                  bsilverkorn@edelson.com

FIBROGEN INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 11 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

FibroGen, Inc. (FGEN)
Class Period: 10/18/2017 - 4/6/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 11, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-fibrogen-inc-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.

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

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


FMC CARSWELL: Norman Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Norman v. Carr, Case No.
4:21-cv-00630-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of inmates.

The Plaintiff says that there are roughly 1300 inmates incarcerated
at Federal Medical Center (FMC), Carswell. He adds that the inmates
are subjected to supervision by prison officials that do not
consider balancing the security and good order of the prison with
the safety, health and mental well-being of the inmate population.


FMC, Carswell is a United States federal prison in Fort Worth,
Texas for female inmates of all security levels with special
medical and mental health needs. It is operated by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of
Justice.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 6, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QP0my1 at no
extra charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


FRONTIER UTILITIES: Frey TCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JON FREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL
PERSONS AND ENTITIES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER
UTILITIES NORTHEAST LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-2372-KSM (E.D. Pa.), Judge Karen S. Marston of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, and dismisses his claims against
Frontier without prejudice and without shifting costs and fees.

Plaintiff Jon Frey brought the putative class action against
Defendants Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC and Energy Acquisitions
Group, LLC ("EAG"), alleging that the Defendants violated Section
227(b) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when
Frontier hired EAG to make automated telemarketing calls to Frey
and other consumers.

On April 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal
with prejudice of Frey's claims against EAG. Frey has moved for
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his remaining claims
against Frontier.  Frontier opposes the motion, arguing that
dismissal should be either with prejudice or conditioned on Frey
paying Frontier's costs and attorneys' fees.

Judge Marston explains that she must examine the prejudice to the
Defendant, both in terms of legal prejudice and litigation expense.
Factors relevant to her analysis include: (1) "the excessive and
duplicative expense of a second litigation;" (2) "the effort and
expense incurred by the defendant in preparing for trial;" (3) "the
extent to which the current suit has progressed;" (4) the
claimant's diligence in moving to dismiss; and (5) "the pendency of
a dispositive motion by the non-moving party."

The Judge holds that these factors weigh in favor of granting
dismissal without prejudice.  The likelihood of second or
duplicative litigation is low.  The parties have signed a
settlement agreement, and although Frontier now contests the
validity of that agreement, if it is approved, it will finally
resolve Frey's claims in the case, including the class claims.  In
addition, although the litigation has been pending for almost two
years, it has been stayed and without a trial date for more than
half that time, and neither party has filed a dispositive motion.
In addition, before the case was stayed, the parties conducted only
limited discovery and no depositions.

Indeed, if the case were to move forward, the Court would have to
decide outstanding issues related to fact and expert discovery,
issues which are compounded by Frontier's suggestion that it if the
case proceeds, it will amend its answer to add a counterclaim

Finally, the Judge finds that Frey diligently moved for dismissal
of the action.  Once the parties reached a settlement agreement,
Frey moved to stay the case to avoid unnecessary expenses while the
parties sought finalization before Judge Goldberg. And when
Frontier challenged the continued viability of the agreement and
moved for sanctions in Perrong, Frey sought dismissal of this
action so that the parties could make all arguments in one forum.
Therefore, Frey has given a convincing justification for not moving
earlier to dismiss his claims.  It is also noteworthy that when
Frey offered to stipulate to dismissal of the action with
prejudice, it was Frontier who refused to sign the stipulation.

Because the Judge finds no substantial prejudice to Frontier, she
dismisses Frey's claims without prejudice.

In the alternative, Frey asks that "if the Court is not inclined to
dismiss with prejudice, it should instead condition dismissal on
Frey's payment of the fees and costs that Frontier has incurred in
the action."

Judge Marston declines to grant costs and fees for three reasons.
First, costs and attorneys' fees are typically awarded "to
compensate the defendant for having incurred the expense of trial
preparation without the benefit of a final determination of the
controversy."  Judge Marston holds that such rationale inapplicable
in the case.  Second, Frey did not file this motion to dismiss in
bad faith.  Third, if Frey does refile his claims, Frontier may at
that time seek to recover its costs in the action.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Marston grants Frey's motion
and dismisses the case without prejudice and without shifting costs
and attorneys' fees.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/25m8ee7k from Leagle.com.


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Retirees Sue Over Reduced Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
LANA SUE HANSON, RICHARD A. HANSON, JANE WILJAMAA, ALAN WILJAMAA,
on their own behalves and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries, and JAMES ENGLAND, DEBRA
M. ENGLAND, GERALD B. MANNINEN, RITA P. MANNINEN, MICHAEL MURPHY,
PAMELA S. MURPHY, PHYLLIS SODERBERG, ROBERT SODERBERG, KENNETH
STUHR AND CONSUELO STUHR v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, GENERAL
DYNAMICS SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN; GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
RETIREMENT PLAN; ALIGHT SOLUTIONS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HEWITT
ASSOCIATES LLC), Case No. 0:21-cv-01122-JRT-LIB (D. Minn., April
29, 2021) is an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, in which Plaintiffs contest a
retirement plan's actions to reduce Plaintiff's future benefits
under the plan to remedy a mistake the plan and its agents
allegedly made in calculating their plan benefits.

The complaint alleges that the plan first reduced benefits to the
"correct" amount and then further reduced benefits to recoup the
overpayments made before the plan discovered and corrected its
error, which in the case of some of the Plaintiffs, was more than a
decade after benefits commenced. General Dynamics has now reduced
the benefits of the plan to rectify its error. None of the
participants were responsible for the error. The benefit reductions
for the participants, who are now in their 70s, are substantial, in
some cases (including reductions to recover overpayments) exceeding
40%. The Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that the Defendant
committed various fiduciary and other violations under Federal law
that (i) estop them from reducing benefits; (ii) require
reformation of the plan such that future benefit payments are
conformed to the benefit representations made and relied upon by
the Plaintiffs at the time of their retirement; (iii) estop them
from recouping overpayments, and/or (iv) obligate them to reimburse
the plan and Plaintiffs for the losses they suffered because of
Defendant's unlawful actions.

Plaintiffs James England et al., are retired employees of General
Dynamics, who are currently receiving monthly retirement benefits
from the General Dynamics Salaried Retirement Plan. The Plaintiffs'
respective spouses are beneficiaries under the Plan.

Defendant General Dynamics Corporation is a Delaware Corporation
with a principal place of business at Reston, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Amy R. Mason, Esq.
           MILLER & STEVENS, P.A.
           92 Lake Street S.
           Forest Lake, MN 55025
           Phone: (651) 462-0206
           E-mail: amy@millerstevens.com

                      - and -

           Norman Stein
           7709 Corliss Avenue North
           Seattle, WA 98103
           Phone: (205) 410-0989
           E-mail: nps32@drexel.edu


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Bryan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS BRYAN, MILISSA DUCASSE, and TALLY ROKOCZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS
COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00478-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., April 19, 2021)
alleges Gerber for its negligent, reckless, and/or intentional
practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the heavy
metals or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels,
packaging, or advertising of, or statements concerning the
Defendant Gerber's products sold throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of individuals that bought baby food sold by Gerber
that was, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members of the Class and
Subclasses (but known to Gerber), tainted with numerous toxic heavy
metals.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclasses seek
injunctive and monetary relief based on Gerber’s false,
deceptive, and misleading business practices in violation of the
consumer protection statutes of the home states of Plaintiffs and
members of the Class and Subclasses.

Parents and other caregivers, including Plaintiffs and members of
the Class and Subclasses, reasonably believe that the baby food
they purchase for their babies will be healthy, nutritious, and
non-toxic. Alarmingly, they were wrong. On February 4, 2021, the
United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and
Reform's Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy (the "House
Subcommittee") released a report entitled "Baby Foods Are Tainted
with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury" (the
"Report"). According to the Report, several brands of baby food
sold in the United States, including those sold by the Defendant
Gerber, contain unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals including
metals such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium, the suit says.

Defendant Gerber manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
represents, warrants, distributes, and sells baby food products
throughout the United States and describes itself as "[o]ne of the
world’s most trusted names in baby food."  Gerber claims on its
website that it has "among the strictest standards in the world.

Gerber produces baby foods including Gerber Banana Sitter 2nd
Foods; Gerber Sweet Potato Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Apple
Strawberry Banana Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Apple Sitter 2nd Foods;
Gerber Banana Blackberry Blueberry Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Pear
Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Apple Banana with Oatmeal Sitter 2nd
Foods; Gerber Banana Apple Pear Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Butternut
Squash Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Banana Orange Medley Sitter 2nd
Foods; Gerber Apple Blueberry Pouch Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Green
Bean Sitter 2nd Foods; Gerber Banana Pear Zucchini Pouch Toddler
12+ Months; Gerber Carrot Sitter 2nd Foods; and Gerber Apple
Blueberry Sitter 2nd Foods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian A. Richardson, Esq.
          Justin W. Ward, Esq.
          FORD RICHARDSON P.C.
          901 E. Byrd Street, Suite 1800
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 220-6113
          Facsimile: (804) 482-4898

               - and -

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          Zachary Rynar, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com
                  zrynar@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin G. Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) -223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

GFL ENVIRONMENTAL: Sheppard BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DONALD SHEPPARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GFL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES USA, INC.,
Case No. 2021 CH 01827, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 20,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02743 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to institute,
maintain and adhere to a publicly-available retention schedule;
failing to obtain a written consent and release before obtaining
biometric identifiers and information; and disclosing the
Plaintiff's and all others similarly situated employees' biometric
identifier and information to third parties before obtaining a
consent.

GFL Environmental Services USA, Inc. is an environmental services
company with its principal place of business in Raleigh, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         David C. Gustman, Esq.
         Steven M. Hartmann, Esq.
         FREEBORN & PETERS LLP
         311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 360-6000

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Landmark UK Suit Over Alleged iPhone Tracking
---------------------------------------------------------------
indiatimes.com reports that a proposed multi-billion pound British
class action against Google, which alleges the Internet giant
secretly tracked millions of iPhone users, is not viable and should
not be allowed to proceed, the Supreme Court was told.

Antony White, a lawyer for Google, told the first day of a two-day
hearing that the maiden, U.S.-style data protection lawsuit could
only seek redress under English laws if any data breach had led to
claimants suffering damage.

"It is not my case that loss of personal data may not have serious
consequences, but it may not always do so in a way that attracts
compensation," he said, adding that any uniform award would also
fail to take into account differing phone usage.

Richard Lloyd, a former director at consumer rights group Which?,
is leading the claim that seeks to extend Britain's fledgling class
action regime - and multi-billion pound data protection claims
against tech giants, such as Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, rest on
the judgment.

Lloyd has previously estimated that damages could run to 750 pounds
per iPhone user, potentially bringing damages to more than 3
billion pounds ($4.2 billion) if any future trial succeeds.

The case, brought on behalf of more than four million Apple iPhone
users, hinges on whether Google breached its duties as a data
controller by clandestinely collecting browser-generated data and
then offering it to advertisers in 2011 and 2012 - and whether such
a class action can proceed in Britain.

Experts say the case is "hugely significant" and warn businesses
that harvest and use troves of personal data for commercial gain to
consider whether they are acting fairly and transparently.

"If the judgment goes in favour of the claimants, we will see the
floodgates open to a tsunami of representative data class actions
in the UK," said Julian Copeman, a partner at Herbert Smith
Freehills.

Critics of "opt out" class actions, which automatically bind a
defined group into a lawsuit unless individuals opt out, say they
can lead to claims without merit and lush profits for litigators
and their funders.

Proponents say they allow easier access to justice, especially when
individual claims are too small to pursue individually, and that
alternative "opt in" lawsuits, where every claimant signs up, are
costly and time-consuming.

The Confederation of British Industry, a trade body, says such
cases could be "highly detrimental", noting the risk of ruinous
damages awards could prompt settlements regardless of the merits of
a case. [GN]


HEALTH FIRST: Colucci Sues Over Monopoly for Acute Care Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY COLUCCI, VANESSA LORRAINE SKIPPER, KELLY BAKER Individually
and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. HEALTH FIRST, INC.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00681-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 19, 2021) arises
from the alleged pervasive and long-term exclusionary misconduct
that Health First has committed in the market for acute care and
that this Court has already scrutinized.

In Omni Healthcare Inc. v. Health First, Case No. 6:13-cv-
1509-Orl-37DAB (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Dalton, J.), physician
competitors of Health First sought to recover profits lost due to
Health First's anticompetitive conduct. After one day of trial, on
August 16, 2016, Health First agreed to settle and the case was
voluntarily dismissed.

Allegedly, Health First was unchastened. After the Omni Healthcare
settlement, Health First continued its efforts to maintain and
strengthen a monopoly in the market for acute care, and restrained
trade, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. sections 1-2. Health First achieved these anticompetitive
ends through exclusionary acts suppressing and injuring
competition, including acquiring the largest competing physician
group, Melbourne Internal Medical Associates; leveraging its market
power in adjacent markets into the acute care market; pervasive and
highly effective exclusive dealing in hospital referrals; and a
group boycott of competitors.

Health First was formed in 1995 by the joining of Holmes Regional
Medical Center (Holmes RMC) and Palm Bay Hospital (located in SBC)
and Cape Canaveral Hospital (located in Central Brevard County).
Health First was at this time the sole provider in SBC because it
controlled the only two acute care hospitals in the county. The
only acute care hospital competitor to enter the relevant market
since that time has been Wuesthoff-Melbourne in 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald G. Meyer, Esq.
          MEYER AND BLOHM, P.A.
          Post Office Box 1547
          Tallahassee, FL 32302
          Telephone: (850) 878-5212
          E-mail: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 645
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-3020
          Facsimile: (202) 296-3036
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

HYATT CORPORATION: Crump Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE CRUMP,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v. HYATT
CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive Case No. 4:20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on September 9, 2021 to enter an order
certifying the following three classes against her former employer,
Defendant Hyatt, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(3):

   -- Uniform Class

      "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt uniformed
      colleagues who worked for Defendant within the State of
      California at any time during the period from December 6,
      2015 to the present;"

   -- Rounding Class

      "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
      who worked for Defendant within the State of California at
      any time during the period from December 6, 2015 to June 1,
      2019;" and

   -- Meal and Rest Break Class

      "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
      who worked for Defendant within the State of California at
      any time during the period from December 6, 2015 to the
      present."

Hyatt "is a global hospitality company" whose "purpose is to care
for people so they can be their best."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 6, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3viKHpv at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@parrislawyers.com
                  awheeler@parrislawyers.com
                  kszeto@parrislawyers.com
                  rcrist@parrislawyers.com

INTRUSION INC: Faces Neely Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE NEELY; and JOAN NEELY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTRUSION INC.; JACK
BLOUNT; and B. FRANKLIN BYRD, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00374-SDJ (E.D. Tex., May 14, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Intrusion securities between January 13, 2021 and April 13, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that 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, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Intrusion Inc. is a global provider of entity identification, high
speed data mining, cybercrime and advanced persistent threat
detection products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (972) 521-6868
          Facsimile: (346) 214-7463
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               -and-

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               -and-

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MT. LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03791-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.

Mt. Lebanon School District is a unified school district with its
administrative offices located at 7 Horsman Drive in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: N.Y. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL SQUARE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03786 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Central Square Central School District is a unified school district
with its administrative offices located at 44 School Drive in
Central Square, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLOVERLEAF LOCAL SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cloverleaf Local Schools is a school district with its offices
located on 8525 Friendsville Road in Lodi, Ohio.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OSCODA AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-03808-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Oscoda Area Schools is a unified school district with its
administrative offices located at 3550 East River Road, Oscoda,
Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAINE TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 207, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03792 (N.D. Cal., May 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Maine Township High School District 207 is a unified school
district with its administrative offices located at 1177 South Dee
Road in Park Ridge, Illinois.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schalmont Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03788 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Schalmont Central School District is a unified school district with
its administrative offices located at 4 Sabre Drive in Schenectady,
New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KLAUSNER LUMBER: Additional Time to File Class Status Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE RAYMOND v.
KLAUSNER LUMBER ONE LLC and KLAUSNER LUMBER TWO LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01380-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting the parties an additional 30 days from May 6, 2021
      to comply with the Rules as to preparation of the Case
      Management Report and filing of the Motion to Certify Class;

      and

   2. granting Final Default Judgment against the Defendants.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fHWM14 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Dickens, III, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418 2042
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3354
          E-mail: tdickens@forthepeople.com
                  mfermaint@forthepeople.com

KPMG INT'L: Can't Get Out of Suit Filed by Miller Energy Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bramwell at goingconcern.com reports that a Tennessee federal
judge on May 7 greenlighted class certification in a multiyear
lawsuit against KPMG by investors of the now-defunct oil and gas
company Miller Energy Resources Inc., despite KPMG's best efforts
to get the lawsuit thrown out.

According to Law360, U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin had
recommended that the Miller Energy investors be certified as a
class despite KPMG's objections, including that the investors had
failed to prove that Miller Energy's stock was traded on an
efficient market.

Judge Thomas Varlan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee agreed with Poplin's recommendation and
sided, in this instance, with the plaintiffs. Law360 reported:

Judge Varlan overruled KPMG's objections to a federal magistrate
judge's report recommending certification for the class of Miller
Energy investors, despite the auditor's assertion that it had,
among other things, rebutted the presumption that all members of
the class had relied on its public statements when deciding to
invest.

"Defendant therefore fails to identify what was in error about [the
magistrate judge's] reasoning, or why defendant's presented cases
are more persuasive, other than that they reach defendant's desired
conclusion," Judge Varlan said.

The judge also largely denied a bid to toss some of the claims
facing KPMG in the 2016 suit, which alleges that Miller Energy paid
$4.45 million for oil and gas assets in Alaska that it then claimed
to be worth $480 million. Two years after the purchase, in 2011,
investors pressured Miller Energy to hire an accounting firm such
as KPMG, the investors claim.

Around the same time, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
began asking about the value of the assets, and a financial website
reported that the company had overvalued them, according to court
filings.

A 2011 blog from The Street Sweeper, which was published on the
financial markets news website Seeking Alpha, was skeptical of the
value of assets that Miller Energy purchased in late 2009. At the
time, Miller Energy said the assets were valued at more than $327
million, but The Street Sweeper quoted an energy executive who
estimated the assets were worth "only $25 million to $30 million
and were offset by $40 million worth of liabilities," according to
an article by the Knoxville News Sentinel.

Judge Varlan said in August 2018 that after KPMG was hired by
Miller Energy in 2011, the firm failed to complete an independent
audit but instead relied on published reports and defended the
valuation of the assets:

Even after a report from TheStreetSweepers questioned the valuation
of Miller Energy's assets, defendant represented to shareholders
that the valuation was accurate and that the article was
inaccurate.

As Law360 noted, Judge Varlan ruled at that time that the blog post
and questioning by the SEC should have opened KPMG's eyes to Miller
Energy's financial misstatements, and he determined that the
investors adequately alleged that as the financial irregularities
became apparent, shares of Miller Energy declined. The plummeting
value of the shares resulted in Miller Energy stock being delisted
by the New York Stock Exchange, according to Law360. Miller Energy
filed for bankruptcy in late 2015.

The lawsuit claims Miller Energy and KPMG used "a plethora of false
statements, fraudulent accounting, and other fraudulent reporting
devices to falsify the financial results of Miller Energy,
conspiring to perpetrate a massive fraud on plaintiff and others in
member of the investing public."

The investors also claim that KPMG violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making material
misrepresentations in relation to the sale or purchase of
securities. And they argue that KPMG's review of Miller Energy's
quarterly financial statements were not in compliance with GAAP,
GAAS, and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board standards.

KPMG reached a $6.2 million settlement with the SEC on Aug. 15,
2017, for failures related to its audit of Miller Energy,
including:

Not properly assessing the risks associated with accepting Miller
Energy as a client and not properly staffing the audit;
Not considering and addressing facts known to them that should have
raised serious doubts about the company's valuation; and
Failing to detect that certain fixed assets were double-counted in
the company's valuation.
The lead engagement partner, John Riordan, also settled charges
against him, agreeing to a $25,000 fine and a suspension to
practice before the SEC.

According to Law360, the trial is expected to begin in February
2022. [GN]


LIFEMD INC: Faces Owens Securities Suit Over Price Share Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID L. OWENS, SR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LIFEMD, INC. F/K/A CONVERSION LABS, INC.,
JUSTIN SCHREIBER, JUAN MANUEL PIÑEIRO DAGNERY, and MARC BENATHEN,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03384 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired LifeMD securities between January 19, 2021 and April 13,
2021, inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that many of LifeMD's
executives were associated with Redwood Scientific when it was
charged for unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false
claims, and that they employed similar practices at the Company.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

LifeMD is a direct-to-patient telehealth company. It offers a
telemedicine platform that purports to help patients access
licensed providers for diagnoses, virtual care, and prescription
medications. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          Gregory B. Linkh (GL-0477)
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Fifth Securities Class-Action Lawsuit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner at wfmj.com reports that Lordstown Motors is being
named in a class-action lawsuit filed by a fifth investor who says
he spent tens of thousands of dollars on the company's stock which
has fallen 77% in value since late September.

A civil complaint was filed in U.S. District by Raymond J. Romano
claims that from early August through late March, he paid a total
of $51,668 to purchase 3,200 shares of Lordstown Motor's RIDE
stock, and its predecessor that acquired LMC, DiamondPeak
Holdings.

The complaint estimates that there are "hundreds of thousands" of
investors who purchased the stock between August 6, 2020 and March
25, 2021.

Romano's complaint alleges violations of federal securities law by
Lordstown Motors CEO Steve Burns, as well as five people who served
as DiamondPeak directors.

Like four other similar class actions filed in federal court,
Romano's lawsuit cites Burns' public announcement that LMC had
100,000 pre-orders for the Endurance; an all-electric pickup truck
that Burns has said will begin production in September at the
former General Motors Assembly Plant in Lordstown.

The latest lawsuit alleges that statements regarding the Endurance
were false and misleading and failed to disclose "adverse facts"
about Lordstown Motors and its prospects:

Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the number of
Endurance pre-orders was fabricated, and therefore inflated, and
thus did not accurately reflect demand; (2) Lordstown had
fabricated the pre-orders in order to give prospective investors a
false sense of confidence; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
the Proxy Statement's positive statements about Lordstown's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis."

Romano's suit says LMC failed to reveal that a substantial amount
of the pre-orders were from customers who didn't operate commercial
fleets, or didn't have the financial means to buy the trucks.

The suit also cites a March 12, 2021 report from Hindenburg
Research which claimed that Lordstown Motors had no sellable
product and misled investors.

During a March 17 earnings call with investors, CEO Steve Burns
revealed that Lordstown Motors was under investigation by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and the board of directors has
formed a committee to conduct an internal inquiry.

The complaint says LMC's stock value was also damaged by
photographs the purported to show the Endurance "breaking down" as
a video commercial was being photographed several days prior to the
announced merger of DiamondPeak and Lordstown Motors.

Romano's attorneys seek damages and are asking for a jury trial. A
judge has already ruled that the four previous complaints would be
combined.

The defendants have not yet filed a response to the latest
complaint. 21 News has reached out to LMC's public relations firm
seeking a reply.

Steve Burns has previously said that LMC would "vigorously defend"
against the previous lawsuits, as well as cooperate with the
Securities and Exchange investigation.

Investors will learn more about Lordstown Motors' financial
situation when the company releases a first-quarter earnings report
and conducts a conference call about those earnings. [GN]


LOUISIANA: Denial of Discovery Continuance in Lillie Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Troy Lillie, Leah Farr, Kenneth Doughtery, Charles
White, Martha Jean Witmer, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Office
of Financial Institutions State of Louisiana, SEI Investments
Company, SEI Private Trust Company, Continental Casualty Company,
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, Indian Harbor Insurance
Company, Nutmeg Insurance Company, Arch Insurance Company, Allied
World Assurance Company (U.S.), Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 19-30705 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for continuance under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d) and awarding summary judgment to SEI.

The case is one of many lawsuits resulting from the collapse of
Robert Stanford's Ponzi scheme.  The Plaintiffs are among the
unfortunate investors who purchased or renewed certificates of
deposit ("CDs") issued by Stanford International Bank, Ltd.
("SIBL").  After their investments went up in smoke, the Plaintiffs
sued, among others, SEI Investments Co. and SEI Private Trust Co.
(jointly, "SEI"), businesses that had a longstanding relationship
with SIBL.

Stanford Trust Co. ("STC") served as the custodian for all IRA
accounts holding CDs from SIBL.  Starting in 1998, SEI provided STC
with investment-processing and reporting services using its
proprietary Trust 3000 software.  That software allows trust
companies to view all their assets -- including non-marketable
assets such as CDs -- in one platform.

SEI offered its processing services through, among other means, a
business services provider ("BSP") model, and STC was one of SEI's
clients that used that model.  In short, that meant that SEI
assumed STC's "backoffice processing function."  SEI's contract
with STC outlined what that function would entail.

The contract contemplated that SEI would be an independent
contractor; it limited SEI's involvement with the CDs.  STC (but
not SEI) priced the CDs and other non-marketable securities, and
SEI did not perform due diligence on how STC valued the CDs.
Instead, STC provided SEI with all the relevant information,
including the CDs' face value, interest rate, maturity date, and
market value, and STC was "solely responsible" for that data's
"accuracy and completeness."  SEI could "rely upon instructions"
from STC, and STC had a right to inspect SEI's records, but not
vice versa.

SEI also furnished STC with statement production and printing
services, including the creation of client statements and tax
forms.  To do so, SEI sent data from Trust 3000 to a third-party
printer.  STC was still responsible for reviewing and distributing
the statements, and the statements made plain that they were STC's
(not SEI's).  STC had the printer mail the statements directly to
clients.

STC paid SEI a fixed fee, including $110 for each account that had
only CDs from SIBL.  During the relevant period, SEI billed STC
about $808,000 for all services, $279,000 of which was for CD-only
accounts.

After the Ponzi scheme had crashed and burned, the Plaintiffs sued
SEI and several others in state court, alleging violations of
Louisiana securities law.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs brought
primary liability claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes Sections
51:712(D) and 51:714(A) and a secondary control-person liability
claim under Section 51:714(B).  The district court certified a
class including all persons who bought or renewed CDs from SIBL in
Louisiana between Jan. 1, 2007, and Feb. 13, 2009.

After certification, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to
assert direct-action claims against the Insurer Defendants, who
promptly removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act.  The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") then severed
the claims against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
and transferred the rest of the case to the relevant multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the Northern District of Texas.

At the Plaintiffs' request, the court ordered the parties to hold a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference.  The parties did
so and filed their report in June 2015. The court eventually
dismissed or granted partial judgment for the defendants on the
Sections 714(A) and 714(D) claims.  At that point, only the
control-person claim remained.  The district court recertified the
class.

The case pended in the Northern District of Texas for more than
five years, during which time the discovery process largely
stalled.  The parties dispute the cause of the breakdown and the
adequacy of discovery, but the Plaintiffs did not seek judicial
assistance until May 2018 -- some three years after filing the Rule
26(f) report -- when they asked for a status conference.  At that
conference, the court suggested that the Plaintiffs either take a
deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) or move
to compel answers to their interrogatories.  The court did not
enter a scheduling order, and it invited SEI to move for summary
judgment at any time, subject to the Plaintiffs' right to seek a
continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

SEI so moved in September 2018.  Among other things, the Plaintiffs
responded by asking for a Rule 56(d) continuance.  They supported
that request with a declaration from one of their lawyers, who
asserted that the Plaintiffs lacked the discovery they needed to
oppose summary judgment.

Before ruling, the JPML remanded the case to the Middle District of
Louisiana.  That court granted SEI summary judgment, finding that
SEI had not controlled STC's primary securities violations.
Conversely, the court denied a continuance, ruling that the
Plaintiffs had not established Rule 56(d)'s requirements or pursued
discovery with diligence.  Soon thereafter, the court granted
summary judgment to the Insurer Defendants on the direct-action
claims.  The Plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration
and ask the Fifth Circuit to reverse.

The Plaintiffs say that summary judgment was improper because the
district court applied the wrong legal standard and ignored factual
disputes as to SEI's asserted control.

The Fifth Circuit holds that neither theory succeeds, holding that
summary judgment for SEI was proper.  First, it finds that the
district court correctly identified that the Plaintiffs need not
prove that SEI participated in the fraudulent transaction.  The
court relied on Friedman only in reasoning that a showing of
"but-for causation" -- namely that SEI might have been able to
prevent STC's violations -- is not enough to establish control.
Such a rationale (which Louisiana caselaw supports) is distinct
from Friedman's independent holding that the Plaintiffs there had
not alleged culpability.  One may cite a case without endorsing
everything for which it stands.  The district court understood the
law.

Second, the Fifth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs seem to think
that SEI's longstanding ties to STC create a dispute over whether
SEI had control.  But they fail to explain how those ties evidence
anything more than that SEI had a business relationship with STC.
Nor does the Plaintiffs' reliance on the nature of SEI's BSP
relationship with STC advance the ball.  SEI's production and
sending of statements containing the value of the CDs to investors
was insufficient to show control.

The Plaintiffs also contend that the district court should have
granted them a continuance under Rule 56(d) so that they could
gather more discovery before facing summary judgment.

Teh Fifth Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion and finds none.
It holds that a party who fails to pursue discovery with diligence
is not entitled to Rule 56(d) relie, as the district court
recognized, the Plaintiffs neglected to do so.  The case has been
pending for more than a decade, and for north of seven years in
federal court.  Yet, the Plaintiffs waited until May 2018 -- more
than five years after the case was removed and almost three years
after the parties filed their Rule 26(f) report -- to move for a
status conference.  After that, they waited until June 2018 to
serve 134 interrogatories, noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition three
months later, and then failed to serve document requests until two
months after that.

Even if SEI's discovery tactics were wrongful, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure place the onus on the discovery-seeker to invoke
the judicial process.  Rule 37 provides that a party may obtain a
court order compelling discovery that it has not been able to
obtain through cooperation with the other side.  But the Plaintiffs
never took matters into their own hands, even though the MDL
district judge reminded them of their right to file a motion to
compel.  Instead, the first time they "sought judicial assistance
in obtaining discovery was in response to SEI's summary judgment
motion."  Having dawdled for years, the Fifth Circuit holds that
the Plaintiffs had no right to a judicial rescue.

In light of the foregoing, the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/263y3sv7 from Leagle.com.


MAPLES LONG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Snell at winnipegsun.com reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been launched against the owner of Maples Long Term Care Home
and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority in response to a
COVID-19 outbreak last fall that claimed the lives of at least 56
Maples residents.

Representative plaintiffs Lawrence Lewsey and Eddie
Calisto-Tavares, who lost family members during the outbreak, are
seeking damages from Revera Inc. and the WRHA, alleging low
staffing levels and neglect during the outbreak. Around 74 staff
tested positive for COVID-19 and were required, the lawsuit
alleges, to be absent from their duties at Maples for varying
amounts of time. The statement of claim says residents were left
dehydrated, hungry and susceptible to COVID-19 infection due to the
critical staffing shortage. It is alleged the WRHA failed to
recognize, respond and provide oversight to the problems.

"That is why we are suing because someone needs to be held
accountable for what happened," she said. "The only way to get this
(matter) to the forefront is by doing this. We are seeking answers
to what happened. We want to continue to shine the light on these
tragic events that occurred at Maples."

Affected families need to be heard, Tavares explained. She said the
province hired an external reviewer who compiled a list of 17
recommendations as part of an inquiry into what happened at Maples.
She's seeking the truth after reading the recommendations.

"On one hand, (the reviewer) said Maples had a robust pandemic
plan," she said. "And yet, if you look at the 17 recommendations, I
think it is number three that says they need a robust pandemic
plan. She contradicted what she found."

A statement from lawyers said the province's review declared Maples
was not prepared for the staff reduction. New workers brought in to
help were insufficiently trained in COVID-19 prevention and
control, they allege. Plaintiffs also allege that subpar
documentation, a lack of sanitization protocols and poor
communication contributed to the fatalities at Maples. The lawsuit
also names AXR Operating Inc., a partner of Revera, as an
additional defendant.

A spokesperson for Revera said in a statement to the Sun, "We
extend our deepest sympathies to all the families and friends of
residents affected by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. Revera
respects the court process and we will respond to the proposed
legal action at the appropriate time and through proper legal
channels."

The WRHA declined to comment on the matter. [GN]

MASTER MOBILELINK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mashburn Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON MASHBURN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER MOBILELINK, LLC dba CRICKET
WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00412-DPM (E.D. Ark.,
May 14, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Masburn was employed by the Defendant as sales
associate.

MASTER MOBILELINK, LLC dba CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC provides wireless
communications services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Greg Ivester, Esq.
     WH LAW
     1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
     North Little Rock, AR 72114
     Telephone: (501) 891-6000
     E-mail: chris@wh.law
             greg@wh.law

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Ferjani Suit Seeks to Proceed as Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FATMA FERJANI, AFIFA
BACCOUCHE, RODELINE HILAIRE and AYLONN GDAIEM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 0:21-cv-60770-JIC
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. adopting the "Consent Notice to Become Party Plaintiff";

   2. directing the Defendant to disclose to Plaintiffs the names
      and last known mailing address of all current and former
      hourly employees of the Defendant using the Clear-to-Work
      application since May 1, 2020, within 20 days of the Court's

      Order permitting this case to proceed as a collective
action.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), against Defendant, who willfully failed to pay all overtime
compensation to Plaintiffs, in contravention of the FLSA.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated May 6, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fH8gSy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  assistant@levylevylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert R. Hearn, Esq.
          EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          One Beach Drive, SE, Suite 303
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 346-3767
          Facsimile: (888) 509-0788
          E-mail: RHearn@ebglaw.com

MDL 2972: Bid to Remand Peterson Customer Data Breach Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH
LITIGATION. Brian Peterson, Plaintiff v. Allina Health System,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-mn-02972-JMC, MDL No. 2972, Civil Action
No. 3:21-cv-00989-JMC (D.S.C.), Judge Julianna Michelle Childs of
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division, denies Brian Peterson's Motion to Remand.

On Oct. 7, 2020, Peterson filed a class action on behalf of "all
persons who had their health records released by Defendant Allina
to Defendant Blackbaud during the relevant liability period" in the
Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin
County.  In his original Complaint, Peterson claimed that Allina
violated the Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA") by releasing his
and similarly situated individuals' health records to Blackbaud
without their consent.  He also asserted that Blackbaud violated
the MHRA by disclosing his and similarly situated individuals'
health records to third parties without their consent during a
ransomware attack on Blackbaud's systems in spring 2020.

Invoking the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), Blackbaud removed
the action to the District of Minnesota on Nov. 3, 2020.  On Nov.
10, 2020, Blackbaud notified the Court and the parties that the
JPML was considering a motion to transfer and consolidate the
action with other putative class actions arising out of the
Ransomware Attack when it filed its Motion to Stay proceedings
pending the JPML's decision.

Seven days later, Peterson dismissed Blackbaud as a defendant
without prejudice.  In his Notice of Dismissal, Peterson asserted
that dismissing Blackbaud from the case eliminates any basis for
federal jurisdiction, and the Court must therefore remand the
matter to Hennepin County District Court.

On Nov. 20, 2020, Peterson filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of
"all citizens of Minnesota who had their health records released by
Defendant Allina to Blackbaud during the relevant liability
period."  In his Amended Complaint, Peterson named Allina as the
sole defendant and alleged that Allina violated the MHRA by
releasing his and similarly situated individuals' health records
without their consent.  Although the Amended Complaint does not
name Blackbaud as a defendant, it maintains that Blackbaud's
conduct contributed to Peterson's injury.

Mr. Peterson subsequently filed the instant Motion to Remand and
Memorandum in Support on Nov. 25, 2020.  He claims that remand to
Hennepin County District Court is warranted because "to the extent
thr Court ever had jurisdiction, removing Blackbaud from the case
and filing the Amended Complaint eliminated any basis for it."  On
Dec. 2, 2020, Allina filed a Memorandum in Opposition, contending
that the action was properly removed from state court under CAFA.
Peterson filed a Reply on Dec. 16, 2020.

On Dec. 15, 2020, the JPML issued a Transfer Order consolidating
putative class actions arising out of the Ransomware Attack in the
District of South Carolina for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
After this case was listed in Conditional Transfer Order 1 ("CTO"),
both Peterson and Allina challenged the transfer and moved to
vacate the CTO.  On March 30, 2021, the JPML denied Peterson's and
Allina's Motion to Vacate and transferred the matter to the court.

The Court initially denied Peterson's Motion to Remand without
prejudice pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1.  However, it
agreed to consider the Motion on the merits at the Third Case
Management Conference on April 30, 2021.

Mr. Peterson contends that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the action under CAFA because the amount in
controversy does not meet CAFA's jurisdictional threshold and
minimal diversity does not exist.  He also claims that the local
controversy and discretionary exceptions to CAFA bar the court from
exercising jurisdiction over the case.

However, Judge Childs holds that Peterson's claims erroneously rely
on the Amended Complaint he filed after the action was removed.
Since jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, the
propriety of remand depends on the pleading in place at the time of
removal.  In the case, Peterson's original Complaint was the
operative pleading when Blackbaud removed the action to federal
court.

After a thorough review of Peterson's original Complaint, Judge
Childs finds that the matter was properly removed from Hennepin
County District Court.  At the time of removal, CAFA conferred
subject matter jurisdiction over the action.  Additionally, the
local controversy and discretionary jurisdiction exceptions did not
apply.  Accordingly, the Judge denies Peterson's Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycvnsjaf from Leagle.com.


MILLIMAN INC: Bid for Protective Order in Healy Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a
INTELLISCRIPT, Defendant, Case No. C20-1473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge
John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion
        for a protective order;

   (ii) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

  (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to seal.

The Defendant, through its IntelliScript service, provides reports
to life insurance and other risk-management companies containing
insurance applicants' medical and prescription histories.  It
relies on a variety of sources to compile the information included
in the reports, including Pharmacy Benefit Managers, pharmacies,
and health insurance companies.  The Defendant captures a
significant volume of data and has prepared over 40 million reports
in the last six years.  As a result, it relies heavily on automated
processes to gather the information and then applies algorithms to
analyze it.

The Defendant relies on a system to match individuals' personal
identifying information to their medical and prescription records
to ensure that the information included in its reports relates to
the appropriate individual.  This identifying information includes
an individual's name, social security number, date of birth, and
zip code.  But in order "to account for misspelling and other
potential errors" in the data it receives, it also includes
information for individuals with near names, i.e., "same
consonants, reversing first and last names, and nicknames."  In
some instances, the Defendant also "removes the suffix or hyphen"
in an individual's name.  This indisputably results in the
inclusion of erroneous information in the Defendant's reports, the
frequency of which is the subject of the suit.

The Plaintiff applied for life insurance in 2020 and was denied
coverage based on a report from Defendant to his prospective
insurer that listed several conditions he never had.  The errors
were substantial and included the following wrongly attributed
conditions: osteoarthritis, diabetes, liver disease, chest pains,
and sleep apnea.  He contacted the Defendant regarding the
erroneous report.  Yet despite what the Defendant describes as its
"rigorous reinvestigation protocols," it is undisputed that it did
not correct the report in a timely manner.  As a result, when the
Plaintiff reapplied for life insurance with the same insurer, he
was again denied.  The Defendant indicates that its failure to
timely correct the Plaintiff's report was human error on the part
of its staff and not reflective of a systematic failure.

The Plaintiff filed a class-action complaint asserting that the
Defendants' actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq.  In it he alleged
violations of Section 1681e(b) for inaccurate reporting, Section
1681i(a) for a failure to adequately investigate errors, Section
1681i(f) for a failure to forward disputed items for resolution to
source consumer reporting agencies, and Section 1681g(a)(2) for a
failure to disclose to the Plaintiff the sources of the information
that the Defendant included in the report.

Litigation in the putative class action is still in its early
stages.  The Defendant answered the Plaintiff's complaint in
December 2020.  The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference and
made initial disclosures in February 2021.  At the time, the
Plaintiff lodged 63 requests for production ("RFP").  In general,
they address how the Defendant gathers and processes the data
included in its reports, its quality control system, and how it
resolves disputed items.  In response, the Defendant produced just
nine documents.

Following two discovery conferences, the Defendant moved for a
protective order and for summary judgment.  It argues that the
Plaintiff's suit is nothing more than a "fishing expedition based
on a hunch" that the Defendant's systems and procedures are
inadequate under the FCRA.  In response, the Plaintiff asks the
Court to deny summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d) and to strike certain declarations in support of
Defendant's summary judgment motion.  He also moves to seal certain
documents the Defendant labeled as "confidential" pursuant to the
protective order filed in the case that he referenced and/or
included in support of its opposition brief.

Discussion

The Defendant argues that its procedures are reasonable, that the
Plaintiff's experience was unique, and that he has no colorable
FCRA claims.  It suggests that it should not be forced to incur the
expense of full-blown discovery, given its allegedly reasonable
procedures.  However, because the FCRA's requirements are generally
premised on the reasonableness of the Defendant's procedures, the
discovery the Plaintiff seeks is just as applicable to the
class-wide allegations as it is to his individual claims.  Judge
Coughenour finds that the Plaintiff has met his burden to establish
that the discovery he sought is appropriate at this time and that
summary judgment prior to such discovery would be premature.

A. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order

The Defendant seeks to limit its responses to RFPs 8, 11, 14-15,
24-25, 31-34, and 36 solely to materials related to the Plaintiff
and to not produce any materials responsive to RFPs 12-13, 17-23,
26-27, and 57-63, on the basis that those RFPs relate solely to
class allegations.  It contends that the Plaintiff cannot make the
required prima facie showing or demonstrate that this discovery is
likely to substantiate the class allegations because he "lacks a
cognizable claim under the FCRA."  It separately argues that the
requests for production are "vastly overbroad, unduly burdensome,
and disproportionate to the needs of the case."

Judge Coughenour granted the Defendant's motion for a Rule 26(c)
protective order with respect to RFPs 21 and 22 and denied with
respect to the remaining requests.  After having reviewed the RFPs
at issue, the Judge agrees that numbers 21 and 22, while relevant,
are overbroad in that they are not time-limited.  He disagrees with
the Defendant's contention regarding the remaining disputed RFPs.

B. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff fails to establish
genuine issues of material fact with respect to each of the four
FCRA claims describe.  In response, the Plaintiff asks the Court to
deny the Defendant's motion or defer ruling on it pursuant to Rule
56(d) because there are facts subject to the outstanding discovery
requests that are solely in the Defendant's possession and are
essential to justify the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's
summary judgment motion.  In support, the Plaintiff provides a
declaration describing the specific facts he seeks to discover,
which are likely to exist and are solely within the Defendant's
control, and articulates why those facts are essential to his
opposition.  Based on this declaration, Judge Coughenour finds that
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims based on the Defendants
arguments described would be premature.

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff fails to present
evidence supporting the notion that its acts were willful, thereby
precluding an award of FCRA statutory damages.  As the Plaintiff
points out, many courts have held that the willfulness of an
alleged FCRA violation is not an appropriate issue for summary
judgment.  Nevertheless, the Court need not opine on that issue.
It is clear that, even if willfulness were an issue appropriate for
summary judgment, additional discovery is required before Plaintiff
could put forth evidence addressing it.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Separately, the Judge need not address the Plaintiff's request to
strike portions of the declarations that Defendant filed in support
of its summary judgment motion, as they were not necessary for the
Court to reach its holding on the Defendant's motion.

C. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal

The Plaintiff moved to maintain under seal unredacted versions of
its brief opposing the Defendant's summary judgment motion, a
declaration supporting that brief, and an exhibit attached to the
declaration.  All of these documents contain references to an
internal policy document that Defendant labeled as "confidential"
when producing it pursuant to the protective order entered in the
case.  The Defendant has since consented to removal of the
"confidential" designation and the Plaintiff has requested that the
Court unseal the documents he previously filed under seal.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to maintain these documents
under seal is denied as moot.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion for a protective
order is granted in part and denied in part, its motion for summary
judgment is denied, and the Plaintiff's motion to seal is denied as
moot.  The Defendant need not respond to RFPs 21 and 22 as
submitted.  However, the Plaintiff may revise and resubmit RFPs 21
and 22, to contain a reasonable time limitation, within seven days
of the Order.  Finally, the Clerk is directed to unseal Docket
Numbers 35, 36, and 37.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bvcapkr9 from Leagle.com.


MYLAN NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation

Case No. 1:16-CV-07926 (JPO)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All purchasers and acquirers of Mylan N.V. or Mylan Inc. Common
Stock during the period from February 21, 2012 through and
including May 24, 2019 (the "Class Period").

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, officers and directors
of Mylan N.V. or Mylan Inc. and members of their immediate families
and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and
any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered April 6,
2020, certifying the above action as a Class Action (the "Action").
This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated.
Accordingly, no claim form needs to be filed at this time.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
Action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which is available on the settlement
website, www.mylansecuritieslitigation.com. That Notice of Pendency
of Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights with
respect thereto.

If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail, please contact
us in writing:

Mylan Securities Litigation

c/o JND Legal Administration

PO Box 91375

Seattle, WA 98111

info@mylansecuritieslitigation.com

www.mylansecuritieslitigation.com

Telephone: 1-888-383-0351

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:

Jeremy Lieberman

POMERANTZ LLP

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: 212-661-1100

Facsimile: 212-661-8665

For questions, visit www.mylansecuritieslitigation.com or call
toll-free at 1-888-383-0351.

Inquiries should NOT be directed to the court, the clerk's office,
the Defendants, or Defendants' counsel.

By Order of the Court

Cision View original
content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/summary-notice-of-pendency-of-class-action-for-all-purchasers-and-acquirers-of-mylan-nv-or-mylan-inc-common-stock-301269010.html
[GN]


NCAA: Disregards Players' Health and Safety, Meyer Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-02047 (S.D. Ind., April 19, 2021) is a class action
complaint against the Defendants to obtain redress for all persons
injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and
safety of Michigan student athletes.

The Plaintiff is a former college football player seeking to
represent a class of other similarly situated student-athletes
(Players) who suffered concussive and sub-concussive head injuries
while participating in football games and practices at the Central
Michigan University.

The NCAA was created to protect the students that participate in
various college sports, including football. Despite its alleged
purpose, the NCAA has allegedly failed to take reasonable actions
to protect Players from the chronic risks created by such injuries
and fraudulently concealed those risks from Players.

Approximately 100 years ago, medical studies first revealed that
athletes who endured repeated head contact risked long-term brain
damage. Numerous subsequent medical studies established that the
head trauma routinely inflicted in football games can cause
neurocognitive decline, permanent mental disability and death.

NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes
from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.

Central Michigan University is a public research university in
Mount Pleasant, Michigan. Established in 1892, Central Michigan
University has more than 20,000 students on its Mount Pleasant
campus and 7,000 students enrolled online at more than 60 locations
worldwide.[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.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, 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
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

NEW HAVEN: Finalizes Settlement Over Lead Poisoning Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Breen at newhavenindependent.org reports that with the
stroke of a pen, city officials and legal aid attorneys are now one
court hearing away from ending a two-year legal battle over how the
city Health Department protects lead-poisoned local children.

City Corporation Counsel Patricia King and New Haven Legal
Assistance Association (NHLAA) staff attorney Amy Marx stood side
by side on the ground floor of City Hall for that celebratory legal
rapprochement and press conference.

The city's top attorney and the local legal aid housing lawyer
gathered with Mayor Justin Elicker, city Health Director Maritza
Bond, NHLAA Director of Litigation Shelley White, and other top
city officials to sign a newly finalized 86-page proposed
settlement in the case Nyriel Smith v. City of New Haven.

The proposed settlement, which can be read in full here, now heads
to city housing court for a "fairness hearing" and final decision
by a state Superior Court judge before the terms of the agreement
go into effect.

"It was a very time consuming and painstaking effort, but we were
all on the same page in terms of what our best interests were,
which is to protect the health of this city's children," King said
at presser.

"This is an opportunity for us to set the tone that any level of
lead is a risk to the children that we serve," added Bond.

"This settlement represents a most important new day," concluded
Marx. "A legally enforceable commitment by the city to change the
policies and practices of its Health Department. The agreement not
only solves prior deficiencies, but it charts a process and
procedure for lead abatement that can be a role model for others in
the state and the nation."

The upbeat tone and mutual accord of the press conference marked
just how far this often-acrimonious case has come in two years.

In May 2019, legal aid attorneys first sued former Mayor Toni
Harp's administration for neglecting hundreds of lead-poisoned
local children by not enforcing lead paint inspection and hazard
abatement standards as spelled out by city law.

The original class action lawsuit alleged -- and Harp health
department officials admitted in state housing court -- that the
city violated city law when the local health department stopped
mandating lead paint inspections and issuing lead paint abatement
orders when children tested at blood lead levels between 5 and 20
micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL). Lead exposure in young children
can lead to lifelong behavioral and cognitive impairments.

The class action suit offered manifold examples of state judges
siding against the city in how it enforced its lead laws. The suit
also inspired alders to clarify and strengthen the city lead
poisoning ordinance. And it provided a campaign critique for
now-Mayor Justin Elicker when he successfully challenged Harp for
the office in 2019. Since Elicker took office, this case appears to
have sparked an overhaul in how the city Health Department handles
child lead poisoning cases.

While the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated grinding to a halt
of court cases across the state led to continuance after
continuance after continuance as negotiations dragged on, press
conference settlement signing revealed that the two sides remained
on largely the same page when it came to putting to bed this class
action suit.

"I think that the biggest change here is a determination to make
sure that what is in the law actually happens," Marx said about the
proposed settlement. With the previous administration, whenever
legal aid attorneys and their clients sought to discuss how the
lead paint inspection and enforcement program could work better,
"the city's initial response was: There's nothing wrong with the
system. Nothing's broken. Everything works.'"

"The most critical piece is we could actually sit down and discuss
which pieces of the program are actually working," and which need
to be changed to work better.

With this settlement, "we have an agreement on what we should we.
We have in writing what the agreement is. The court is going to be
monitoring [the city's compliance with the agreement]. And, most
importantly, there's going to be transparency," with the Health
Department sharing its lead poisoning-related files with legal aid
twice a month for the duration of the agreement.

City Health Director Bond said that the city has already made great
strides in addressing many of the concerns raised over the course
of this case.

The city now has six full time lead paint hazard inspectors, a HUD
Acting Program Manager to process lead abatement applications, a
program coordinator, a lead outreach worker to focus on community
education about the hazards of child lead poisoning, and a hefty
chunk remaining of a $5.6 million federal grant received by the
Harp administration to support lead hazard abatement.

She said that, since November 2018, the city has "closed" 239 cases
involving children under six who had a blood lead level equal to or
greater than 5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL). The city
currently has 158 such lead-poisoning cases still open.

The proposed settlement defines the class of plaintiffs covered by
the agreement as all children living in New Haven who were under
the age of six as of Nov. 1, 2018 and who have or had elevated
blood lead levels equal to or greater than 5 μg/dL.

The group covered by the proposed settlement does include children
living in Section 8 housing, but explicitly does not include
children living in housing owned by the city's public housing
authority, Elm City Communities/Housing Authority of New Haven
(HANH). The public housing authority has its own, parallel,
federally-mandated lead inspection and abatement procedures. (See
below for more information on how the housing authority recently
received a $3.7 million federal grant to inspect and abate lead
paint hazards at its properties.)

At the center of the proposed settlement is a 31-step process that
the city Health Department must follow upon learning that a child
under the age of six has tested as having an elevated blood lead
level above 5 μg/dL.

Some of those mandatory responses include:

* Within two working days of learning that a local child under the
age of six has tested at or above 5 μg/dL, the city Health
Department must open an individual, electronic and/or paper case
file for that class member. Each file must contain a checklist with
date entries for action taken and copies of all written
communications.

* The Health Department must mail a written notice to the parents
or guardians of that class member that includes educational
material "setting forth the dangers of lead poisoning, precautions
to take in order to reduce the risk of lead poisoning, interim
controls to put in place in order to reduce exposure to lead
hazards, information about potential eligibility for services for
the class member, information on follow-up blood lead testing, and
an explanation of the legally required epidemiological
investigation process."

* The Health Department must then make "reasonable efforts" to gain
entry into the child's home to conduct an epidemiological
investigation. If the city is unsuccessful in contacting the
child's parents or guardians by telephone or written communication,
then the Health Department must make at least two home visits to
attempt to reach them in person. And if they're still not able to
gain consent from the parent/guardian, "the Health Department may
seek an administrative search warrant for a court-ordered entry
within 10 working days after the unsuccessful attempt to reach the"
parents or guardians.

* Within five working days of learning of a child with an elevated
blood lead level, the Health Department must initiate an
epidemiological investigation that consists of a "comprehensive
lead inspection" and an "epidemiological interview." The inspection
is to identify lead-based paint surfaces and hazards in the
interior and exterior of the dwelling unit and common areas. "This
includes XRF testing and laboratory analysis of dust, water, and
soil." The interview then seeks to identify all potential lead
exposures and factors that may cause a child to have an elevated
blood lead level. Such an investigation must be completed within 30
working days of the city's receipt of an actionable blood lead
level.

* Within 10 working days of the comprehensive lead inspection, the
Health Department must then send letters to other parents and
guardians who reside in the same building as the child who as
tested as having an elevated blood lead level, letting them know
about the presence of lead paint hazards on site.

* If the city finds out that the child who has tested as having an
elevated blood lead level lives in a housing authority-owned
property, then the city may issue a written referral that the
housing authority conduct an epidemiological investigation within
15 days. Same goes for if the child lives in Section 8-subsidized
housing.

* Within two days of completing the epidemiological investigation,
the Health Department must complete and submit a lead inspection
and testing summary form to the state Department of Public Health
commissioner, the property owners, and the child's
parents/guardians.

* If chipping or flaking lead paint is found on site, if movable
parts of windows and surfaces that rub against movable parts of
windows are found to contain lead, and/or if chewable surfaces are
found to contain lead, then the Health Department must issue a lead
abatement order to the property owner to abate all lead hazards
within 30 working days of receipt of the laboratory report of an
actionable blood level. The Health Department may issue a six-month
extension to the property owner to complete abatement if the owner
certifies in writing that the property is vacant and that there
will be no reoccupancy without full remediation.

* The order must instruct the property owner to post a notice at
each entrance to the premises and each entrance to each dwelling
unit in which lead hazards were identified within two working days
of receipt of the order.

* The Health Department must ensure that the property owner submits
a written lead abatement plan within 15 working days after the lead
abatement has been ordered. That plan must identify the location of
the lead-based hazards and describe how all such lead-based hazards
will be abated.

* The Health Department must ensure that lead abatement is
initiated by the property owner within 45 business days after the
lead abatement has been ordered and "that the property owner will
diligently pursue and complete such lead abatement for any dwelling
unit or premises for which abatement has been ordered."

* Upon completion of abatement and prior to re-occupancy, the
Health Department shall reinspect the abated area to ensure that
the lead abatement plan has been followed. Within two days
following completion of reinspection, the Health Department shall
issue a post-abatement inspection report to the property owner and
the parents/guardians.

* Upon verification that abatement has been property completed, the
issuance of the post-abatement report, and the submission of a
written management plan, the Health Department shall issue and file
with the City Clerk's office a release of the order to abate lead
hazards.

If a property owner fails to comply with a lead abatement order or
fails to "diligently pursue compliance with a lead abatement
order," they shall be prohibited from renting the dwelling unit to
a new tenant until the city Health Director finds that acceptable
repairs have been made.

And in terms of monitoring the city's compliance with the terms of
the settlement, starting Aug. 1, the city must provide the
plaintiff's counsel with bi-monthly updates on open and closed lead
hazard cases for class members covered by the agreement.

Housing Authority Lands $3.7M Lead Cleanup Grant

In a separate but related development, the federal department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it will be
awarding New Haven's public housing authority with $3.7 million to
clean up lead hazards in housing authority-owned properties.

In a phone interview with the Independent, Elm City
Communities/HANH Executive Director Shenae Draughn said that these
federal funds will be used to abate roughly 150 units of public
housing in the so-called Scattered Site homes.

Those are single-family, two-family, three-family, and four-family
homes owned by the New Haven housing authority that are located all
across the city, including on Eastern Street, Chamberlain Street,
Quinnipiac Avenue, Kingswood Driver, County Street, and Central
Avenue.

"We had recognized the need to remediate lead in our apartments,
and we have been diligently moving through our portfolio to do so,"
Draughn said. She said the Scattered Site single-family and duplex
homes require a "larger capital need" than larger apartment
complexes for lead abatement. "This grant will help us plug that
gap to remediate those homes."

She said the housing authority plans to issue requests for
proposals soon to hire contractors to do that lead paint hazard
abatement work at Scattered Site homes across the city. The actual
remediation work itself should start in sometime in the next three
months. [GN]

OBJECTSHQ LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Fischler Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OBJECTSHQ LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04370 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

OBJECTSHQ LLC is an ecommerce platform for modern furniture. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com


PARAGON METALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roberts Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARAGON METALS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11110-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., May 14, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Roberts was employed by the Defendant as staff.

Paragon Metals, Inc. distributes engineered precision components.
The Company offers gray and ductile iron castings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Wilkinson, Esq.
          PALADIN EMPLOYMENT LAW PLLC
          251 North Rose Street
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3860
          Telephone: (269) 978-2474
          E-mail: mark@paladinemploymentlaw.com


PAVILIONS MARKET: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Associates' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL MENDOZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PAVILIONS MARKET, THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., ALBERTSONS
COMPANIES INC., Case No. (April 19, 2021) is a class action
complaint against Pavilions, Vons and Albertsons to challenge its
policies and practices of failing to properly compensate non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and missed meal and rest periods.

These policies and practices deny the Plaintiff and putative Class
members proper compensation for all hours worked and meal and rest
periods that comply with California labor law. The Defendants
violate California law by rounding down the amount of time
Plaintiff and putative Class members worked on their pay statements
and by knowingly and willfully failing to properly compensate
Plaintiff and putative Class members for all hours worked.

The Defendants violate California law by knowingly and willfully
failing to authorize and/or permit Plaintiff and putative Class
members to take all meal and rest breaks to which they are
entitled, the Plaintiff contend.

Plaintiff Rachel Mendoza is a former non-exempt, hourly employee
who worked as an E-commerce Associate for Pavilions at its Long
Beach location in California from November 22, 4 2020 until January
19, 2021. In this role, the Plaintiff's duties included ensuring
that online stores are visually appealing, easy to navigate and
furnished with accurate, up-to-date content.

Pavilions Market, according to its Website, operates as a grocery
banner used by The Vons Companies, Inc. throughout the State of
California.

The Vons Companies, Inc., according to its website, is a
supermarket chain that operates stores under the Vons and Pavilions
banners. throughout the State of California and the State of
Nevada.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., according to its website, is the
second-largest supermarket chain in North America and operates
stores, including to, Vons and Pavilions, throughout the State of
California and in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          Jin K. Oh, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  joh@schneiderwallace.com

PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company continues
to
defend putative class action suits related to overarching
conspiracy.

The same three putative classes, including (a) direct purchasers,
(b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers, have filed two sets of
class action complaints alleging that Perrigo and other
manufacturers (and some individuals) entered into an "overarching
conspiracy" that involved allocating customers, rigging bids and
raising, maintaining, and fixing prices for various products. Each
class brings claims for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act as well as several state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes.

Filed in June 2018, and later amended in December 2018 (with
respect to direct purchasers) and April 2019 (with respect to end
payors and indirect resellers), the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions include allegations against Perrigo and
approximately 27 other manufacturers involving 135 drugs with
allegations dating back to March 2011.

The allegations against Perrigo concern only two formulations
(cream and ointment) of one of the products at issue, Nystatin. The
court denied motions to dismiss the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions, and they are proceeding in discovery.

None of these cases are included in the group of cases on a more
expedited schedule pursuant to the court's July 14, 2020 order.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed a second set of "overarching conspiracy" class
actions against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals dating back
to July 2009 (end payors) or January 2010 (indirect resellers).

The direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their second round
overarching conspiracy complaint in February 2020 with claims
dating back to July 2009.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend their second round December 2019 complaint, and that
motion was granted.

On September 4, 2020, and December 15, 2020, the end payor
plaintiffs amended their second round complaint.

On October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs amended their
second round complaint.

On December 15, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed
another complaint adding allegations for additional drugs that
mirror the other class plaintiffs' claims.

This second set of overarching complaints allege conspiracies
relating to the sale of various products that are not at issue in
the earlier-filed overarching conspiracy class actions, the
majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells.

The amended indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sales of Betamethasone
Dipropionate lotion, Imiquimod cream, Desonide cream and ointment,
and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream.

The December 2020 indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sales of Adapalene, Ammonium
Lactate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene, Calcipotriene
Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate,
Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Proprionate,
Hydrocortisone Acetate, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate,
Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and
Triamcinolone Acetonide.

The amended end payor complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in
connection with its sale of the following drugs: Adapalene,
Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine
Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox,
Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide,
Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone
Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide,
Mometasone Furoate, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate,
Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The
amended direct purchaser complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired
in connection with its sale of the following drugs: Adapalene,
Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine
Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate,
Fluocinonide, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate,
Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine
HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the second set of overarching
conspiracy complaints, and responses are currently or will be
stayed.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing Underway in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company is defending
itself against a class action related to the alleged overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which the company neither
makes nor sells suit initiated by an end payor, in Ontario,
Canada.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada
against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the
same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming
Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin.

In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
additional claims based on the State AG complaint of June 2020.

On May 7, 2021, the Court ruled that this case will move forward as
a bellwether case.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and no schedule has
been set for such responses.

At this stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the outcome of the
liability if any, associated with the claims listed above.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERSONNEL SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sala Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK SALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONNEL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00111-CRH (D.N.D. May 14, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Sala was employed by the Defendant as lead operator.

PERSONNEL SERVICES LLC operates as an employment agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PERSPECTA INC: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Peraton
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PARSHALL v. PERSPECTA INC., JOHN M. CURTIS, SANJU K. BANSAL,
SONDRA L. BARBOUR, LISA S. DISBROW, GLENN A. EISENBERG, PAMELA O.
KIMMET, RAMZI M. MUSALLAM, PHILIP O. NOLAN, BETTY J. SAPP, and
MICHAEL E. VENTLING, Case No. 3:21-cv-00678-BEN-AGS (S.D. Calif.,
April 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated alleging that the Perspecta and the
members of Perspecta's Board of Directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Perspecta will be acquired by Peraton
Intermediate Holding Corp., a portfolio company beneficially owned
by affiliates of The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P. and The Veritas
Capital Fund VII, L.P., through Peraton's subsidiaries Jaguar
ParentCo Inc.

On January 27, 2021, Perspecta announced its entry into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 27, 2021 (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which it would be sold to Veritas Capital.
The Merger Agreement provides that each holder of Perspecta common
stock will receive $29.35 per share in cash for each share of
Perspecta common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").

On April 2, 2021, Perspecta filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy, which recommends that Perspecta
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning he Company’s
financial projections and the financial analyses supporting the
fairness opinions provided by the Board’s financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.

According to the complaint, tt is imperative that the material
information omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company’s
stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they
can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material
information discussed below is disclosed to the Company’s
stockholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times a continuous
stockholder of Perspecta.

Perspecta provides end-to-end information technology (IT) services
and mission solutions to government customers. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

PHOENIX HOUSES: Underpays Residential Counselors, Ahrens Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN AHRENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX HOUSES OF LONG ISLAND, INC. d/b/a
PHOENIX HOUSES OF NEW YORK & LONG ISLAND, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02864 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful retaliation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a primary
residential counselor from June 4, 2019 through approximately
February 10, 2021. He also served as an intern for the Defendant
from February 2019 until approximately May 2019.

Phoenix Houses of Long Island, Inc., doing business as Phoenix
Houses of New York & Long Island, is an addiction treatment center
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

POMIDORO INC: Romeo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO ROMEO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. POMIDORO INC., d/b/a JOE & JOHN'S PIZZERIA, SALVATORE
PINTO, and JAMES LIZZUL, Case No. 1:21-cv-02074 (E.D.N.Y., April
16, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages including minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

In January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff Romeo was hired by the Defendants
to work as a food preparer for the Defendants' Joe & John's
Pizzeria located at 5910 Myrtle Avenue, Ridgewood, New York 11385.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants until March 9, 2021.

Since the beginning of his employment, the Plaintiff worked 11
hours per day, from 11:00 am to 10:00 pm for six days per week, for
a total of 66 hours without a proper lunch break. The Plaintiff and
Class members similarly worked continuously without taking a 30
minutes break.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

PRIMERICA INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Naveja Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA NAVEJA, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v.
PRIMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01298-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, grants the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, and stays the Plaintiff's
claims pending arbitration.

Plaintiff Naveja and the class members she purports to represent
were employed as exempt independent contractors with the
Defendants.  As such, the Plaintiffs were allegedly not paid
certain wages and compensation they would have received if they
were classified as employees.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants had the authority to hire and to terminate the Plaintiff
and the other class members; to set work rules and conditions
governing the Plaintiff and the other class members' employment;
and to supervise their daily employment activities.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants exercised sufficient authority
over the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff and the other class
members' employment for them to be their joint employers.

Based on these and other similar allegations, the Plaintiff brought
a class action suit against the Defendants in Sacramento County
Superior Court alleging violations of eight separate California
labor and employment statutes.  The Defendants then removed the
suit to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 ("CAFA"), and further moved the Court to compel
arbitration.  They argue that the Plaintiff agreed to submit the
claims alleged in the lawsuit to binding arbitration.

Neither party disputes that the Plaintiff agreed to the "Basic
Agreement," which is essentially an employment contract.  In
response, the Plaintiff moved to remand these proceedings to state
court and oppose the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Before Judge England can determine whether to compel binding
arbitration, however, the Court must first have subject matter
jurisdiction.  Thus, the Judge cannot address the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration until the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
-- which challenges that jurisdiction -- has been adjudicated.  If
he finds that the Defendants properly removed the instant action on
jurisdictional grounds, the Judge can then move onto the
substantive motion made by Defendants to compel arbitration of the
parties' dispute.

Analysis

A. Motion to Remand

In now moving to remand, the Plaintiff takes issue only with
whether the Defendants' calculations of "matter in controversy" are
sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction under CAFA.  In the
Defendants' Notice of Removal, the Defendants alleged the amount in
controversy for only one of the Plaintiff's eight claims exceeded
$5.5 million.  The Notice of Removal calculates the violations of
California Labor Code Section 226(a), the Plaintiff's Sixth Cause
of Action, to total $5,518,450.

Judge England notes that even with the Defendants' conservative
estimations of penalties below the statutory minimum, the amount in
controversy is at least $500,000 over the CAFA requirement.  Thus,
the Defendants' calculation of violations for jurisdictional
purposes is reasonable, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
accordingly fails.

B. Compelling Arbitration

The parties do not dispute the existence of the employment
agreements, signed by the Plaintiff, containing the arbitration
provisions encompassing the Plaintiff's instant claims.  Judge
England Court construes the Plaintiff's arguments as two-fold.

The Plaintiff first argues that the entire arbitration clause is
unconscionable and invalid.  In response, the Defendants deny the
Plaintiff's claims and argue the arbitration clause delegates the
question of arbitrability to the arbitrator because the agreement
expressly incorporates the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the
American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  Under those rules,
according to the Defendants, it is for the arbitrator to determine
whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable and invalid.  The
Plaintiff's counter by claiming that the arbitration agreement did
not "clearly and unmistakably" delegate arbitrability to the
arbitrator.

Judge England finds that the incorporation of the AAA rules
constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that contracting
parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.  He also finds that the
delegation clause, as the Defendants refer to section 15b of the
Agreement, states "The arbitration will be conducted in accordance
with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association (AAA)."  Thus, the arbitration clause clearly and
unmistakably delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator.  And since
there is no procedural unconscionability, there is no reason under
Nevada law to analyze the Plaintiff's arguments for substantive
unconscionability.

C. Dismiss or Stay the Proceedings

A district court has the discretion to either stay the case pending
arbitration or to dismiss the case if all of the alleged claims are
subject to arbitration.  As the parties agreed to arbitrate
arbitrability, it is entirely possible that the arbitrator will
either resolve the dispute between the parties or find that the
arbitration clause does not cover the dispute.  "Consequently, in
the Court's view, it would be unwise to dismiss the Complaint
altogether.  Instead a stay pending completion of the arbitration
proceedings one way or the other is the more prudent option."

Conclusion

For the he reasons stated, Judge England denies the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand and grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to stay these proceedings pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4uddrxb6 from Leagle.com.


PURECYCLE TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:PCT) from November 16, 2020 through May 5, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased PureCycle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit PureCycle Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven
and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges
posed by the availability and competition for the raw materials
necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are significant;
(iii) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Before the markets opened on May 6, 2021, Hindenburg Research
published a report on PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest
Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall
Street." Among the allegations in the report were that "PureCycle's
executives based their financial projections on 'wild ass
guessing,' brought companies public far too early, and had deceived
investors." The report also stated that Hindenburg was "unable to
find a single peer reviewed study in any scholarly journal citing
or reviewing PureCycle's licensed process," contrary to the norm in
the field. Furthermore, Hindenburg spoke to a "30-year expert on
polymers" who "referred to the company's flammable pressurized
process as a 'bomb' and warned about the company forging ahead to
commercial scale despite having issues at a lab scale."

On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell from its May 5, 2021
closing price of $24.59 per share to a May 6, 2021 closing price of
$14.83, which represents a one-day drop of approximately 40%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased PureCycle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/purecycletechnologiesinc-pct-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-398/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com

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

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

Contact Information

Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against PureCycle
Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 12, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/purecycle-technologies-inc/#case-form
to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. PureCycle's management team had
previously taken six companies public, each of which imploded
shortly thereafter. The Company's motivation in going public was to
secure tens of millions of dollars and tradeable shares whether the
deal was favorable or unfavorable. The Company faced intense
competition for feedstock which it misled investors about. The
Company's patent did not hold the value it led investors to
believe. The Company's pressurized process was not yet functional
at production scale, and remained dangerous. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the
truth about PureCycle, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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

REGINA'S FAMILY: Zenteno Suit Seeks OT Wages for Kitchen Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO ZENTENO, and NOE HUEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. REGINA'S FAMILY PIZZA INC. d/b/a
REGINA'S PIZZERIA, and MICHAEL WARD, Case No. 1:21-cv-02082
(E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated non-exempt kitchen workers seeking to
recover from the Defendants their unpaid overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards and the New York
Labor Law.

The suit also seeks liquidated damages, statutory damages under the
Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) arising out of the Defendants'
failures to furnish them with a wage notice upon hiring and with
accurate weekly wage statements, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Huey also seeks damages
for Defendants' unlawful retaliation against him in violation of
the FLSA and NYLL.

The Plaintiffs worked as cook's aids and dishwashers at Regina's
Pizzeria, an Italian pizzeria and restaurant located in Flushing,
Queens. Throughout their employment periods, the Plaintiffs
regularly worked between thirty-nine to 72 hours per workweek but
were paid on a day rate basis, which resulted in them not being
paid for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiffs also regularly worked shifts that were longer than
ten hours but were not paid spread-of-hours pay.

In addition to denying the Plaintiffs their wages due, the
Defendants allegedly failed to provide them with wage notices and
wage statements as required by law. Finally, the Defendant Ward
threatened Huey and his family members if Huey joined Zenteno in
this lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ROLLER BEARING: Robles Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 30-2021-01195291-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on May 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00925 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and various California Wage Orders including failure to
provide meal breaks and rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
itemized wage statements and records, failure to reimburse
necessary expenses, and unlawful business practices.

Roller Bearing Company of America, Inc. is a manufacturer of
fabricated metal products headquartered in Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Ryan D. Saba, Esq.
         Francesca Dioguardi, Esq.
         ROSEN SABA, LLP
         9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 285-1727
         Facsimile: (310) 285-1728
         E-mail: rsaba@rosensaba.com
                 fdioguardi@rosensaba.com

ROMEO POWER: Faces Nichols Securities Suit Over Shares Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROMEO POWER INC. (f/k/a RMG ACQUISITION CORP.), LIONEL
E. SELWOOD, JR., LAUREN WEBB, ROBERT S. MANCINI, PHILIP KASSIN, D.
JAMES CARPENTER, STEVEN P. BUFFONE, W. GRANT GREGORY, W. THADDEUS
MILLER, and CRAIG BRODERICK, Case No. 1:21-cv-03362 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 16, 2021) is a securities action brought under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of Romeo
during the period October 5, 2020 through March 30, 2021, inclusive
(the Class Period).

On February 12, 2019, RMG Acquisition Corp., a New York City-based
special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, announced that it
closed its initial public offering of 20 million units at $10 per
share, resulting in gross proceeds of $200 million. The units began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"RMG.U". Each unit consisted of one share of the Company's Class A
common stock and one-third of one warrant, with each whole warrant
enabling the holder thereof to purchase one share of Class A common
stock at a price of $11.50 per share. When the shares of Class A
common stock and warrants began separate trading, they traded on
the NYSE under the symbols "RMG" and "RMG.WS."

RMG was formed by Defendants D. James Carpenter, Robert Mancini and
Philip Kassin, and was formed for the purpose of entering into a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination with one or more
businesses in the diversified resources and industrial materials
sectors.

On October 5, 2020, RMG announced a definitive agreement for a
business combination with Defendant Romeo that would result in
Romeo becoming a publicly listed company.

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

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased Romeo's publicly traded common stock as
detailed in the attached Certification and was damaged thereby.

Romeo was founded in 2016, and according to its SEC filings, Romeo
purports to be an industry leading energy technology company
focused on designing and manufacturing lithium-ion battery modules
and packs for commercial electric vehicles. Romeo asserts that
through its industry leading energy dense battery modules and
packs, it enables large-scale sustainable transportation by
delivering safe, longer lasting batteries with shorter charge
times. Romeo's core product offering purportedly serves the battery
electric vehicle (BEV) medium duty short haul and heavy duty long
haul trucking markets, as well as specialty trucking and buses. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jason A. Uris, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  juris@kaplanfox.com

SHELL LAKE: Coetzee Suit Seeks CNAs' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY COETZEE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHELL LAKE HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00337 (W.D. Wis., May 20, 2021) brings
this collective and class action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged unlawful policy that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a certified nursing
assistant (CNA).

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required her and other
similarly situated CNAs to clock out for an unpaid 30-minute meal
break during their shifts. However, they were not allowed to leave
the building during their unpaid meal break periods. Since they
were prohibited to leave the premises of the employer, they were
considered an "on-duty" meal period in accordance with the law. As
a result, the Defendant has allegedly violated Wisconsin
Administrative Code Section DWD 272.04(1)(c) by failing to pay its
CNAs for "on-duty" meal periods that resulted to unpaid overtime at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
worked performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

On her behalf and on behalf of all members of Collective Class and
the Wisconsin Unpaid Wage Class, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid
back wages from the Defendant, liquidated damages and penalties,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.

Shell Lake Health Care Center, LLC is an institution that primarily
engaged in the care for the sick and/or the aged who reside on its
premises. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Tel: (608) 257-0040
          Fax: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  cmadden@hq-law.com

SHELL OIL: Kurimski Sues Over Deceptive Gasoline Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH KURIMSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Case No. 9:21-cv-80727-DMM (S.D.
Fla., April 16, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of a
class of consumers who purchased gasoline with a debit card and
were unknowingly charged an undisclosed fee by the Defendant, in
direct violation of the Florida's Consumer Protection Laws.

This action seeks to end Defendant's knowing, intentional, and
deliberate payment processing scheme through which it continues to
collect substantial profits from consumers, many of whom cannot
afford to take an additional financial hit from Shell.

Shell gasoline is sold to consumers through its network of wholly
owned, franchised, leased, and branded dealers across the country
and the state of Florida.

The Defendant sells its products through a network of Shell-branded
gasoline stations in the United States, in addition to offering
marketing services and business support to its independently
operated, licensed, and/or franchised Shell stations.

The Defendant collects royalties from its licensees and/or
franchisees and therefore has a direct stake in the success of its
Shell-branded dealers. To drive sales and increase their own
revenue, the Defendant has engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme
which misleads consumers into believing they will be charged a
lower price for gasoline purchases made with debit cards, when in
reality consumers are charged a higher "credit" price for these
transactions.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Delray Beach, Palm Beach
County, Florida.

The Defendant refines and markets gasoline and other petroleum
products under the Shell brand name, selling petroleum products to
approximately 14,000 Shell-branded retail outlets.  Shell is number
one in the industry in branded gasoline stations, and number one in
total gallons of gasoline sold in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com
                  erin@whitfieldbryson.com
                  amanda@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Gindel Jr., Esq.
          ROBERT C. GINDEL, JR., P.A.
          1500 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 220
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 649-2344
          Facsimile: (561) 965-8550
          E-mail: robertgindel@robertgindel.com
                  shannon@robertgindel.com

SKILLZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Skillz
Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Skillz" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) securities between December 16, 2020 and
April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Skillz investors
have until July 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report about the
Company alleging that the growth speculations from Skillz and its
insiders were "entirely unrealistic" and that Skillz's top three
games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue, reported a decline in
downloads since the third quarter of 2020.

On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 10.9%,
to close at $24.45, thereby injuring investors.

On April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous report on
Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of providing
users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely recognizes
substantial non-cash revenue and [] cash revenues may be less than
½ of GAAP revenue."

On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 6.61%,
to close at $14.11 on April 19, 2021. Shares continued to decline
to close at $12.55 on April 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) three games
responsible for a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined
substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue recognition policy
misrepresented the financial condition of the company; (3)
unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android market; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210513005987/en/ [GN]



SKILLZ INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds on July 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Skillz Inc.
("Skillz" or "the Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 7, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/skillz-inc/#case-form to participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. The three games that comprised the
majority of Skillz's revenue had suffered from a significant
decline. The Company's financial condition was misrepresented by
its revenue recognition policy. The Company's growth projections,
especially in the Android market, were unrealistic. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Skillz, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


STATE FARM: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due July 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN MICHAEL SHIELDS and
CONNIE BOURQUE, Individually and of others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:19-cv-01359-JDC-PJH (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Patrick J. Hanna
entered an order that Plaintiffs' motion be granted and that the
existing schedule be amended as follows:

   1. The following motions are due no later than May 26, 2021:

      -- The plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

      -- Motions to strike expert testimony under Daubert; and

      -- Motions related to class certification issues and/or
         motions for summary judgment relating to individual
         claims or issues.

   2. Unless sooner due under applicable rule, the following
      responses are due no later than July 30, 2021

      -- The defendant's opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for
         class certification;

      -- Responses to motions to strike expert testimony under
         Daubert; and

      -- Responses to motions for summary judgment relating to
         individual claims or issues.

   3. Unless sooner due under applicable rule, the following
      replies are due no later than  August 31, 2021:

      -- The plaintiffs' reply in support of the plaintiffs'
motion
         for class certification;

      -- Replies in support of motions to strike expert testimony
         under Daubert; and

      -- Replies in support of motions for summary judgment
         relating to individual claims or issues; and

   4. Class certification hearing is November 2, 2021

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hSmGld at no extra charge.[CC]

STREET INSIDER: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STREET INSIDER DOT COM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-03349
(S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.streetinsider.com, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a financial news service company that owns and
operates the Website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TD AMERITRADE: July 6 Deadline for Class Certification Bid Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARTLE, on behalf
of herself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
AMERITRADE HOLDINGS CORP., Case No. 20-00166-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order that:

   1. The deadline for any reply in support of the renewed motion
      for class certification is July 6, 2021.

   2. The Plaintiff is permitted 25 pages for her reply
      suggestions.

   3. The deadline for any opposition to the renewed motion for
      class certification is June 21, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vljbHY at no extra charge.[CC]


TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Asher Hamilton at businessinsider.com reports that Tesla was
hit with a class-action lawsuit by a Solar Roof customer who says
the company jacked up the price of his roof by more than $70,000
after he had signed contracts.

The lawsuit, filed in a California court, is being led by Matthew
Amans, an associate professor of clinical radiology at the
University of California San Francisco.

Amans ordered a Solar Roof for his home in June 2020, the suit
said. Amans' most recently signed contract before the price hike
was from March 20, 2021, when he agreed to pay $71,662.06, the suit
said. But over the weekend of April 10, Tesla sent him an email
saying it was raising the price of his project, the suit said.

When he logged onto his account, he saw the new price was
$146,462.22, the suit said. This was corroborated by a screenshot
Amans shared with Insider.

Rather than looking for compensation, the suit aims to get Tesla to
honor its original contract with Amans and install the roof for the
original agreed-upon price.

Other Tesla Solar customers have told similar stories of price
hikes.

Amans, represented by the law firm Edelson PC, brought the suit on
behalf of anyone in the US that was told their Solar Roof price was
going up. The exact size of the class isn't known, the suit said.

Unlike traditional solar panels, which sit on top of a roof,
Tesla's Solar Roof replaces a roof, and is comprised of tiles that
act as solar cells. Per the suit, Amans had not yet had the roof
installed but he had already spent money on making alterations to
his home in preparation, including removing trees to limit shade.

Amans told Insider that a Tesla representative phoned him after he
received the email about the price hike. According to Amans, the
representative apologized. When Amans asked why the price had
risen, the representative repeatedly said it was a "business
decision," Amans said.

Tesla also offered Amans a free Powerwall storage battery if he
decided to proceed with the project, in an email viewed by Insider.
"Basically a $5,000 price cut off of the $76,000 price hike," he
told Insider.

Tesla did not immediately respond to Insider's request for
comment.

Tesla sent out mass emails to Solar Roof customers in April
informing them of price increases to their contract. CEO Elon Musk
said during the company's Q1 earnings call that it had made
"significant mistakes" calculating the cost of the product.

This is the second lawsuit filed against Tesla over the price hike
in two weeks. A Pennsylvania couple who said their Solar Roof price
got bumped up from $46,000 to $78,000 filed a lawsuit against Tesla
on April 30. [GN]



THORNE RESEARCH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Kiler Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARION KILER, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. THORNE RESEARCH, INC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02094 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
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.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Athena provides to their
non-disabled customers through http//:www.Thorne.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant controls and operates Thorne.com. in New York State
and throughout the United States. Thorne.com is a commercial
website that offers products and services for online sale. The
online store allows the user to browse and learn about dietary
supplements including pills and powder, make purchases, and perform
a variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNION BANK: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Friedly Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARALYN FRIEDLY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-03105-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., May 19, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2014 until
February 2019 as a salaried employee in the position of Assistant
Branch Manager at its Pawnee City location.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendant. Although the Defendant
paid their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to include in their
regular rates their bonuses received when calculating their
overtime pay. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were not properly paid for their lawfully earned
overtime compensation, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees seeking to
recover unpaid regular wages and overtime premiums for all hours
worked over 40 hours in any week, as well as liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

Union Bank and Trust Company provides banking services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Ste. 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Driever v. BOP Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEANETTE DRIEVER, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-1807 (TJK)
(D.D.C.), Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia denied the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider
the dismissal of her complaint, to reopen the case, and to extend
her time to appeal.

Ms. Driever was incarcerated at Carswell Federal Medical Center
("FMC Carswell") for two stints before she was released from
custody in April 2018.  In June 2019 -- over a year later -- she
filed the suit against the United States, the United States
Attorney General, the BOP Director, former Warden of FMC Carswell
Jody Upton, "all BOP Wardens," "all BOP Directors of Psychology
Services," and "unknown BOP employees," in both their official and
individual capacities.  In her initial complaint, she claimed that
a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy, Program Statement 5200.04,
violated her rights because it permitted the BOP to place
transgender inmates in women's correctional institutions.

In particular, she objected to transgender -- mainly male-to-female
-- inmates sharing "cells, locker areas, showers, toilets, and
other areas where bodily privacy is normatively protected" with
female inmates.  She asserted violations of her rights under the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, requested
injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages, and
also sought to bring the matter as a class action by seeking relief
on behalf of "similarly situated federal female inmates."

In January 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss Driever's
official-capacity claims, and the individual-capacity claims.  The
next day, the Court set a deadline for her to oppose the
Defendants' motions by Feb. 21, 2020.  Rather than do so, Driever
moved to amend the complaint.  The Court denied the motion without
prejudice for failure to comply with LCvR 7(m).

In June 2020, Driever again moved to amend her complaint.  The
proposed amended complaint added claims under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb-1(a), the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1346(b), the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Section 702, and for
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The proposed amended complaint also sought to join two more pro se
plaintiffs, Rhonda Fleming and Stacey Shanahan, and four more
defendants: former BOP Director Charles Samuels, Warden E. Strong
(current warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in
Tallahassee, Florida) ("FCI Tallahassee"), Warden C. Coil (former
warden of FCI Tallahassee), and Warden Julie Nichols (former warden
of the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota) ("FCI
Waseca").

On Oct. 19, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss
under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Court also denied as futile Driever's motion for
leave to amend her complaint after determining that the proposed
amended complaint's claims would also be subject to dismissal.  In
its Opinion, the Court noted the potential relevance of Tanzin v.
Tanvir, 141 S.Ct. 486 (2020), a Supreme Court case that had been
argued but was awaiting decision.   On Dec. 10, 2020, the Supreme
Court decided Tanzin.  And on Jan. 8, 2021, Driever filed the
pending motion to reconsider and reopen the case, as well as to
extend her time to appeal.

Analysis

I. Motion to Reconsider

Ms. Driever moves for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6).  Her motion turns on her assertion that
the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Tanzin impacts this
Court's dismissal of her RFRA claim.

Ms. Driever's complaint and proposed amended complaint brought
several claims, including a RFRA claim, against various federal
officials in their official and individual capacities.  And for
purposes of the motion, her RFRA claim for monetary damages is the
only one that matters.  The Court dismissed her RFRA claim for two
reasons: (1) "RFRA does not waive the federal government's
sovereign immunity for damages"; and (2) monetary damages were
unavailable against individual federal employees.  Driever now
argues that the Court should reconsider its decision in light of
Tanzin, in which the Supreme Court held that RFRA permits suits for
money damages against federal officials in their individual
capacities.

Judge Kelly holds that Tanzin does not change the Court's prior
determination that monetary damages are unavailable for Driever's
RFRA claim against any Defendant, in either an official or
individual capacity.  First, the Court's determination that "RFRA
does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity for
damages" remains faithful to Circuit precedent.  Second, while the
Supreme Court clarified in Tanzin that monetary damages are
available for individual-capacity RFRA claims, that does not mean
they are available in every case.  And Tanzin does not affect the
Court's previous determination that monetary damages are not
available to her, and that these claims were subject to dismissal.

Third, while Driever's motion relies only on the potential impact
of Tanzin on the Court's prior Opinion, her reply brief appears to
ask the Court to reconsider the Court's (1) refusal to add Fleming
as a plaintiff, see Recon. Reply ¶¶ 5-7, and (2) dismissal of her
FTCA claims for failure to exhaust.  The Judge holds that arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived so the Court
need not, and will not, consider them.

II. Motion to Extend Time for Appeal

In the alternative, Driever asks the Court to extend her appeal
deadline for "excusable neglect" under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).  She argues that her failure to timely
appeal qualifies as excusable neglect only because before the
Supreme Court decided Tanzin, she believed an appeal would be
frivolous.

Judge Kelly finds that that reason could not excuse her failure to
appeal any issue the Court decided in its original Opinion that has
nothing to do with Tanzin.  As for the rest, while the Court weighs
all relevant circumstances to determine whether neglect is
excusable, the most important factor is "the reason for the delay
and whether the delay was within the reasonable control of the
moving party."  The Supreme Court decided Tanzin on Dec. 10, 2020,
within the 60-day window for Driever to appeal the Court's decision
under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
And even before Tanzin was decided, Driever was on notice that the
case was pending and that it could have an impact on her claims.

Ms. Driever had more than a week after the decision in Tanzin to
consider and timely notice an appeal. Instead, she filed her motion
on Jan. 8, 2021, almost a month later.  She does not provide any
reason why she did not timely notice her appeal after Tanzin was
decided, or why she did not request more time to appeal until over
a month later.  She has therefore has not shown excusable neglect
or good cause.  Thus, the Judge will deny Driever's motion to
extend time to appeal.

Order

For all these reasons, Driever's Motion is denied.  A separate
order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydshjywm from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOE NO. 1, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01371-EHM (Ct. Fed. Cl., May 19, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated Language Specialists against the Defendant to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a GS-12 Language
Specialist in occupational series GS-1040 since 2004 until
approximately September 2019.

Along with other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff
desires anonymity in connection with their participation in the
litigation. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified and
treated them as FLSA exempt and deprived them of their rights and
benefits to which they are entitled in accordance with the law.
Instead of paying them overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 per workweek, they were only paid travel
compensatory time.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, interest,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant United States of America, in its Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is an executive agency
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sections 105, 5541, and 5596. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alice Hwang, Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
          1130 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Ste. 950
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Tel: (202) 496-0500
          Fax: (202) 496-0555
          E-mail: achwang@jamhoff.com

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Protect Students From Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPHINE GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN and THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-11168-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., May 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Title IX of the U.S.
Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to take
appropriate actions to protect students from sexual harassment in
the university. Dr. Robert E. Anderson, a physician at the
university, was allegedly using his position to repeatedly and
regularly sexually assault university students. The Defendants
received several complaints from students about Anderson's
misconduct but ignored or suppressed such complaints. As a result
of the Defendants' lack of appropriate policies and procedures to
prevent sexual violence on campus, the Plaintiff and Class members
face a real, immediate, and direct threat of sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and emotional trauma, the suit alleges.

University of Michigan is a public university in Michigan.

The Regents of the University of Michigan is the governing body of
the university. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         950 W. University Dr., Suite 30
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 843-0997
                    (248) 652-2852
         E-mail: epm@millerlaw.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com

                - and –

         Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         Annika K. Martin, Esq.
         Patrick I. Andrews, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th fl.
         New York, NY 10013
         Telephone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com
                 jselbin@lchb.com
                 pandrews@lchb.com

                - and –

         Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
         Lori G. Kier, Esq.
         SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
         1109 Lancaster Avenue
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (888) 711-9975
         E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                 lgk@sstriallawyers.com

VIRGINIA: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Unemployment Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wric.com reports that attorneys for the head of the Virginia
Employment Commission and the five women suing her have started
settlement discussions in the federal class-action lawsuit alleging
"unconscionable bureaucratic failures" at the state agency has kept
people from receiving unemployment benefits.

On April 15, multiple legal aid groups and two law firms working
pro bono filed the lawsuit in federal court in Richmond on behalf
of five Virginia residents. The Virginia attorney general's office,
which is representing VEC Commissioner Ellen Marie Hess, asked U.S.
District Judge Henry E. Hudson for an extension to respond to the
lawsuit.

Hudson originally agreed to give the VEC until May 11, not May 29
as they hoped, but then granted another extension to May in a court
order filed. He revealed the legal teams had initiated settlement
talks in his order.

"The parties have since begun settlement discussions which the
Court believes may be fruitful," Hudson wrote in the order.

A spokesman for one of the legal aid groups representing the
plaintiffs, the Legal Aid Justice, told 8News that Hudson and the
parties met to discuss how to solve issues at the commission.

"We appreciate the intervention of Judge Hudson and are hopeful
this will quickly lead to a resolution for our clients and the
classes named in the suit," Jeff Jones, a Legal Aid Justice Center
spokesman, said in an email.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general's office referred 8News to
the Virginia Employment Commission. A VEC spokeswoman declined to
comment on the settlement talks.

The class-action lawsuit claims the commission, which is in charge
of the state's unemployment insurance benefit system, violated
federal and state unemployment laws and claimants' due process
rights under the U.S. Constitution for failing to promptly respond
to claims, complaints and rule on cases involving those who had
their benefits abruptly stopped.

The plaintiffs, who wanted a trial by jury, sought "declaratory and
injunctive relief" and "adjudication and payment of unemployment
benefits, a prohibition against further violations of law and for
such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be appropriate; for
attorneys' fees and costs," according to the lawsuit.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Labor, over the first
three months of the year Virginia ranks last in the nation in
making determinations on cases within 21 days. The Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission has been tasked with
reviewing how the Virginia Employment Commission has processed
unemployment insurance claims.

The JLARC study, set to come Nov. 15, will examine the pandemic's
impact on VEC, the effectiveness of its response, how the
employment commission administered the state's unemployment
insurance program. It will also look into how VEC will modernize
its IT program, a 12-year effort that resumed in April, according
to JLARC's executive director. [GN]

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Volkswagen, AG (OTC: VWAGY) investors
that acquired shares between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021.
Investors have until June 29, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

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

It is alleged in this complaint that Volkswagen made misleading and
false statements to the market. Volkswagen and Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. had never planned to use "Voltswagen" in any form,
including as the name of vehicle. Volkswagen misled the general
public and the media in regard to the "Voltswagen" name that it
claims was either a "promotion" or a "joke." Based on these facts,
Volkswagen's public statements were materially misleading and false
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Volkswagen, investors suffered damages.

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 29,
2021.

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

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

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]



WESTDALE BRENTMOOR: $1.8M Class Deal in Medina Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YAQUELIN MEDINA, Plaintiff v. WESTDALE BRENTMOOR, LLC
d/b/a BRENTMOOR APARTMENTS, WESTDALE PROPERTIES AMERICA I, LP a/k/a
WESTDALE PROPERTIES AMERICA I, LTD., and WESTDALE ASSET MANAGEMENT,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP a/k/a WESTDALE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-142-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C.
Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Western Division, grants the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for final approval of class action settlement and approval
of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and a
service award pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered into
with the Defendants.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a total of $1,842,037 in
monetary relief.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action on Feb. 28, 2019, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated against the
Defendants.  She alleged the Defendants violated N.C.G.S. Sections
42-46 and 75-54, et seq. by automatically assessing tenants three
fees for filing an eviction: (1) a $96 eviction complaint filing
fee, (2) a $30 service fee, and (3) an attorneys' fee.  The
Plaintiff sought monetary, equitable, and injunctive relief on
behalf of the classes for violating the North Carolina Residential
Rental Agreements Act (N.C.G.S. Section 42-46), the North Carolina
Debt Collection Act (N.C.G.S. Section 75-50, et seq.), and the
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C.G.S.
Section 75-1.1, et seq.).

The Defendants removed the case to the Court on April 10, 2019.

On May 17, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's suit, arguing, inter alia, charging and collecting
Eviction Fees was lawful.  On July 5, 2019, the Plaintiff amended
her complaint to add a claim for negligent misrepresentation.  On
Aug. 18, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint.  The Plaintiff responded.

On Feb. 3, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss on all causes of action in the Complaint, finding that the
Amendment was clarifying.  The Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of
Appeal.  On appeal, the Parties engaged in informal discovery,
including exchanging voluminous records.

On May 13, 2020, the parties participated in a mediated settlement
conference with respected mediator Judge Doug McCullough.  They had
a second mediation with Judge McCullough on Sept. 9, 2020.  At this
mediation, the parties reached an agreement on all material terms
and then formalized their agreement into the Settlement Agreement.

In Order dated Dec. 28, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement, the proposed notice plan, and the Settlement
Classes.  Pursuant to the plan approved by the Court, notice was
disseminated to the classes.  Any exclusions or objections were to
be submitted by April 11, 2021, and the Fairness Hearing was
scheduled for May 14, 2021.  The Settling Defendants served the
necessary documents upon all appropriate officials on Feb. 9,
2021.

The matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for final approval of class action settlement and approval
of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and a
service award pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, dated Nov. 16,
2020.

The settlement provides significant benefits to two classes: the
Collection Letter Class and the Eviction Fee Class.

The Collection Letter Class members are defined as all natural
persons who (a) at any point between Feb. 28, 2015 and June 25,
2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned,
operated and/or managed by one or more Defendants and (c) were sent
a Collection Letter.

The Eviction Fee Class is defined as all natural persons who (a) at
any point between Feb. 28, 2015 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in
any of the properties in North Carolina owned, operated or managed
by one or more Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) actually
paid Eviction Fees.

The Settlement Agreement provides Monetary Relief and/or
Non-Monetary Relief.  Monetary Relief is comprised of $1,502,900 in
cash and $339,137 in Debt Relief for a total of $1,842,037 in
Monetary Relief.  Debt Relief consists of the total amount owed by
Eviction Fee Class members to the Defendants at the time they
vacated their apartments, including but not limited to rent, fees,
costs, expenses, damages, and charges.  The Non-Monetary Relief
consists of the Set Asides and Dismissals, which will allow any
member of the Settlement Class against whom a judgment for
possession at one of the Defendants' Properties was obtained by the
Defendants or its affiliates during the Class Period to remove such
judgment from his or her record.

Collection Letter Class members were eligible to receive both
Monetary Relief and Non-Monetary Relief.  They could claim $50 for
each Collection Letter received from the Defendants, up to a total
of $150.  They were also eligible to request the Non-Monetary
Relief.  Their benefits were available on a claims-made basis.

The Settlement Agreement allotted $50,000 in Monetary Relief to
claims made by the Collection Letter Class Members.  If the amount
allotted to the Collection Letter Class was undersubscribed, then
any amounts remaining would be redistributed equally to the
Eviction Fee Class Members.

Based upon the claims received by the Settlement Administrator and
subject to confirmation that there are no duplicates, the
Collection Letter Class members have made claims for approximately
$11,000 of the $50,000 allotted.  Therefore, the remaining amount
of approximately $39,000 will be allocated to the Eviction Fee
Class.   Eviction Fee Class members are also eligible to receive
both Monetary Relief and Non-Monetary Relief.

Eviction Fee Class members were expected to receive approximately
$485 for being charged and paid Eviction Fees during the Class
Period.  Since there were less claims for the Collection Letter
Class members, the Eviction Fee Class Members will now receive over
$500 for being charged and paid Eviction Fees.  This money will be
provided to the Eviction Fee Class members without having to file a
claim and they will receive Debt Relief for any amounts they owed
to Defendants.

In addition, the Settlement allowed Settlement Class members to
freely request the Non-Monetary Relief, which allows the claimant
to receive Consent Motions to Set Aside Judgment for Possession
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and Stipulations of Dismissal.  Obtaining
a Set-Aside and Dismissal would generally cost a tenant between
$1,000 and $2,000 if a private attorney was retained to handle it
individually.  According to the Claims Administrator, 30 class
members requested a Set-Aside.

Judge Dever holds that the parties' settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate in accordance with North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure 23; was reached at arm's length without collusion or
fraud; and satisfies all of the requirements for final approval.
He finally approves in all respects the Settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Class Counsel is awarded, from the Settlement Fund, attorneys'
fees in the amount of $614,000 from the Defendants to be paid from
the Settlement Fund as set forth in the manner described in
Settlement Agreement.  The Class Counsel is also awarded, from the
Settlement Fund, a reimbursement of their expenses of $3,645.44 and
the Claims Administrator is awarded its expenses for notice and
administration pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge also finds to be fair and reasonable service award of
$2,500 to Yaquelin Medina to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

Any amounts unused for the administration of the Settlement will be
distributed to the Cy Pres recipients: Legal Aid of North
Carolina.

Since no member of the Class has objected or opted out of the
Settlement, the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement is the
date of the signing of the Order or May 14, 2021 whichever is
later, and the Class Releasors will release and forever discharge
the Released Persons from the Released Claims.

By reason of the settlement, and there being no just reason for
delay, the Judge enters final, judgment in the matter and all
claims alleged by the Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, te action is
dismissed with prejudice as against the Class Representative, all
members of the Settlement Classes and the Defendants and Released
Persons.

The parties will bear their own costs except as provided by the
Settlement Agreement and as ordered.

The Class Administrator will complete administration of the class
by making the payments approved by the Order in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Final Order & Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vcrhusn8 from Leagle.com.


YAMASHITA RUBBER: 6th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Enforce Judgments
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and IN
RE: ANTI-VIBRATIONAL RUBBER PARTS CASES, End-Payor Actions. DIRECT
PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, Interested Parties-Appellees v. YAMASHITA
RUBBER COMPANY, LTD.; YUSA CORPORATION; DTR INDUSTRIES, INC.;
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE APM COMPANY; TOYO TIRE &
RUBBER COMPANY, LTD.; TOYO TIRE NORTH AMERICA OE SALES LLC; TOYO
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS (USA), INC., SUMITOMO RIKO COMPANY LIMITED, fna
Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd., Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
20-1599 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reverses the district court's order denying the Defendants' motion
to enforce the judgments from the end-payor lawsuit against the
Plaintiffs.

The appeal is part of the litigation that arose from the
manufacture and sale of automotive anti-vibration rubber parts.
Those parts are used, as their name suggests, to absorb and reduce
vibration transmission in various sections of a vehicle.  In 2013,
a putative class of anti-vibration rubber part purchasers, referred
to as end-payor purchasers, sued several manufacturers and
suppliers, alleging that they conspired to fix prices of
anti-vibration rubber parts. The end payors brought claims under
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26, for violations of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.  They also sued under
certain state antitrust laws.

The end-payor litigation settled in 2016 and 2017, after the
district court certified a nationwide settlement class comprising
persons and entities who indirectly purchased anti-vibration rubber
parts that were manufactured or sold by the defendant manufacturers
and suppliers.  Notably, the settlement class excludes persons or
entities who purchased parts directly or for resale.

In total, the Defendants agreed to pay $80.4 million to the
settlement class.  In exchange for that sum, the class members
"completely released, acquitted, and forever discharged any and all
claims" against the Defendants arising out of or relating to the
conduct alleged in the complaint.  The agreements bind all
settlement class members except those who timely opted out.
Finally, the agreements contain a list of exclusions from the
releases, including for all direct purchasers and specific indirect
purchasers.

Before the district court entered final judgments approving the
settlement agreements in the end-payor lawsuit, Jerry Anderson,
Laura LaRue, and Christopher Lee filed a separate putative class
action against the same manufacturers and suppliers defending the
end-payor litigation, in the same court, in front of the same
judge.  As the Plaintiffs in that new lawsuit, they seek money
damages under the Clayton Act on behalf of a putative class of all
"direct purchasers" of anti-vibration rubber parts.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased parts "from
an entity of which one of the Defendants is the ultimate parent."
Of note, the entity that the Plaintiffs allegedly purchased parts
from is not a defendant in their direct-purchaser lawsuit or the
end-payor lawsuit.  They purchased anti-vibration rubber parts from
a Firestone repair shop (Bridgestone Retail Operations, doing
business as Firestone Complete Auto Care), which is owned by
Bridgestone Americas, a subsidiary of one of the Defendants in both
lawsuits, Bridgestone Corporation.  The trial record also reflects
that the Plaintiffs purchased from a couple of other retail shops,
"Tires Plus" and "Wheel Works," which too are allegedly "part of
the Bridgestone family."  Like the end-payor class, the Plaintiffs
claim that the Defendants conspired to raise prices for
anti-vibration rubber parts and passed down the increased costs to
their putative class of direct purchasers.

Soon after the Plaintiffs filed the direct-purchaser lawsuit, the
district court entered final judgments approving the settlement
agreements in the end-payor lawsuit. In doing so, the court
enjoined all settlement class members from "commencing,
prosecuting, or continuing any and all claims" arising out of or
relating to the released claims.

About a year later, after the Plaintiffs filed their first
discovery request in the direct-purchaser lawsuit, the Defendants
filed a motion to enforce the judgments from the end-payor lawsuit
against the Plaintiffs.  They asked the district court to enjoin
the Plaintiffs from litigating their claims in the direct-purchaser
lawsuit because the settlement agreements in the end-payor lawsuits
prohibited the Plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, from maintaining
their federal antitrust claims against the Defendants.

The district court denied the motion because, in its view, the
Plaintiffs were properly considered direct purchasers under the
ownership-or-control exception to the standing rule of Illinois
Brick.  It also reasoned that the Defendants' litigation tactics
and other post-settlement actions tipped the scales of justice in
the Plaintiffs' favor.  The Defendants appeal.

The only issue on appeal is whether the settlement agreements bar
the Plaintiffs from maintaining their direct-purchaser lawsuit.

First, the Sixth Circuit opines that to the extent "indirectly" or
"directly purchased" are used in the settlement agreements as
"legal phrase[s or term[s] of art," Michigan law instructs the
Sixth Circuit to further consider "case law explanation[s] that
those familiar with such terms of art are held to understand."
Examination of the relevant antitrust case-law explanations of the
terms "indirectly" and "directly purchased" (or "indirect" and
"direct purchaser") confirms the plain meaning of the agreements.
The Supreme Court has "consistently stated" that, for purposes of
federal antitrust law, direct purchasers are those who buy
"immediately from the alleged antitrust violators," and indirect
purchasers are those "who are two or more steps removed from the
violator in a distribution chain."

In the case, the Plaintiffs concede that they did not purchase
"immediately" from Defendant Bridgestone Corporation, or any of the
other Defendants.  They acknowledge that their purchases were "two
or more steps removed" from the alleged violator.  The Plaintiffs
are thus indirect purchasers.  Accordingly, they fall within the
settlement class defined above and are barred by the settlement
agreements from maintaining their federal antitrust claims as the
named Plaintiffs in the direct-purchaser lawsuit.

Second, the Sixth Circuit opines that the settlement agreements
include eight express exclusions from the class-wide releases, none
of which references the ownership-or-control exception.  The
exclusions allow only certain indirect purchasers to bring federal
antitrust claims against the Defendants.  The exclusions also
permit any "claims for damages under the state or local laws of any
jurisdiction other than an Indirect Purchaser State."  That means
that persons or entities who indirectly purchased anti-vibration
rubber parts can sue Defendants under state antitrust laws in
states, like Michigan, that do not follow the special standing rule
of Illinois Brick.

Thus, it seems that the settlement agreements explicitly mention
how the Plaintiffs might sue the manufacturers in the future --
namely, under certain state antitrust laws.  The failure of the
agreements to provide in their exclusions a means by which the
Plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, might sue under federal
antitrust law (e.g., through the ownership-or-control exception)
strongly suggests that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their federal
claims.

Third, the Sixth Circuit opines that the district court's
consideration of post-contracting, external evidence of the
parties' intent was an abuse of discretion.  In addition, with
respect to the manufacturers' arguments on policy considerations in
their briefing on appeal, the Sixth Circuit holds that it decides
the case without reference to those considerations.  the case is a
contract case that requires it to interpret a set of terms.  Where,
as in the case, the language in the contracts is clear and
unambiguous, it looks only within the four corners of the relevant
contracts to accomplish its task.

Having evaluated the terms of the settlement agreements, the Sixth
Circuit holds that they unambiguously bar the Plaintiffs from
maintaining their alleged direct-purchaser lawsuit.  The district
court abused its discretion in holding otherwise.  The Sixth
Circuit, therefore, reverses the district court and remands for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/47t8thnm from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Zachary D. Tripp -- zack.tripp@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL &
MANGES LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

David H. Fink , FINK BRESSACK, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Zachary D. Tripp, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, in
Washington, D.C., Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- David
Yolkut -- david.yolkut@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, in
New York City, Frederick R. Juckniess, JUCKNIESS LAW FIRM PLC, in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, Matthew J. Turchyn, HERTZ SCHRAM PC,
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Robert N. Hochman, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP,
in Chicago, Illinois, Joanne G. Swanson, KERR, RUSSELL AND WEBER,
PLC, Detroit, Michigan, J. Clayton Everett, Jr., MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP, in Washington, D.C., Larry J. Saylor, MILLER,
CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE P.L.C., in Detroit, Michigan, for
Appellants.

David H. Fink, Nathan J. Fink, FINK BRESSACK, in Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan, for Appellees.


YOH SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRECIOUS MARIE STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YOH SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-590857
(Calif Super., San Francisco Cty., April 16, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum and regular rate and overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in
San Francisco County, California as a general staff member from
December 2020 to January 2021.

Yoh Services LLC is an American talent and outsourcing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Yoh’s primary
services include temporary placement, direct hire, managed staffing
services and outsourced solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
                  enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.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 ***