/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210601.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 103

                            Headlines

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Mediation Over Membership Fees Suit Ongoing
8X8 INC: Joint Mediation in Rivas PAGA Suit Set for September
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Agreement in Principle Reached in Skiadas Suit
ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
AENZA SAA: Final Approval of Settlement in 2017 Suit Pending

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Lopez Suit Pending
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Continues to Defend Madrid Class Suit
AIRESPA WORLDWIDE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Narrows Claims in N-N Class Suit
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Briefing on Class Certification Stayed in Perry

ALTA DEVICES: Class of Employees Certified in Gunderson Suit
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Bell Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30
AMERICAN GOLF: Marciano Sues Over Illegal Retention of Gratuities
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Caldwell's Amended Class Complaint Tossed

ARCIMOTO INC: Barnette Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway
BANK OF AMERICA: Cardholders Class Gets Provisional Certification
BAY MOUNTAIN: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
BERMAN & RABIN: Faces Barwick Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
BIGGS & GREENSLADE: Can Compel Arbitration in Dean FDCPA-TDCA Suit

BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Initial Class Cert. for Settlement
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Porter Sues Over Misleading Advertising
BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway
BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Repaid
BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Awaits Preliminary OK

CALIFORNIA FISH GRILL: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CANOO INC: Faces Stockholders Putative Class Suits in California
CAPITAL ONE: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Smith Suit Alleges
CENTERSTATE BANK: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Bid for Class Certification Tossed

CHESTER, PA: Class Settlement in Pitney Suit Gets Final Approval
CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
CLASSICA CRUISE: $875K Settlement in Janicijevic Suit Has Final OK
CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION: Jackson Sues Over Breach of Warranty

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: HEI Suit Removed to District of Colorado
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Oregon
CREE INC: Wedra Seeks to Extend Class Certification Briefing Sched
CULTURAL CARE: Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to June 9
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Denial of Plea in Abatement in Daniels Reversed

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Action
DEDICATED NURSING: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Fortin Claims
DENNY'S INC: Wintjen Suit Seeks to Certify Pennsylvania Class
DENTAL EQUITIES: Court Reopens Scoma Class Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Reply on Class Cert. Bid by June 15

DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
DNH/ML EMPOWER: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 8
DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Sustained
EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Garfield Class Suit Pending
EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway

EDUCATION & ENTERTAINMENT: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
EL TORO LOCO: Ceja Files Suit in California Superior Court
ENTERPRISE LEASING: Benson Bid to Certify Class Partially Granted
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Ordered to Produce Albelo Class Records by June 3
EVMO INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed

EVMO INC: Rung and Vanbecelaere Suits Stayed
EXP REALTY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FAST AC: Court Junks Walters Class Suit without Prejudice
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Bryant Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 6
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 22

FLIRT NY: Bid to Dismiss Nikonov Disability Bias Claim Tossed
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
FPI MANAGEMENT: Archibeque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GEETA BROWN: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 22
GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Has Until July 30 to File Class Cert. Bid

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Bossart Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court OK's Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
GRAND CANYON: Bid to Certify Class in Miller RICO-ACFA Suit Denied

GREENSPOON MARDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Court Approves Settlement in Artiega Wage Suit
GSE SYSTEMS: $15K Remains to be Paid in Joyce Suit Settlement
HONEY BLOSSOM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 1

IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid to Nix NY Putative Class Suit Pending
IANTHUS CAPITAL: TCPA Related Class Suit vs. IEH Dismissed
IDEANOMICS INC: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
IDEANOMICS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rudani Suit
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Must File Class Status Bid by August 25

INFINITY INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
INNOVATIVE GARDENING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Wages Class Certified in Myers FLSA Suit
J-M MANUFACTURING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

J.T. PIERCE PLUMBING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 19
JAGUAR HEALTH: Final Approval of Plant Settlement Pending
JAMES DOLAN: Hollywood Firefighters Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brooks Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"

JENNY JN: Seeks June 18 Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
JOHN WETZEL: Must File Response to Brown Class Certification Bid
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Baltas Class Suit w/o Prejudice
KNIGHT TRANS: LaCross Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Seeks to Certify Class of ESOP Participants

LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal in Khaled Suit Gets Initial OK
LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought
LIFE INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in PFA Marketing Suit
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Ryan Putative Class Suit Dismissed
LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shingote Putative Class Suit Junked

LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Seeks to Certify Non-Managerial Employee Class
LIN'S GARDEN: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 1
LOBSTER BAR: June 7 Response Time to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought
LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Seeks to Certify FDCPA & CSPA Classes
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 1

LOUISIANA: June 18 Extension to Respond to Amended Complaint Sought
MAJESTIC DUDE: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30
MDL 2543: Ruling on Attys.' Fees & Costs in GM Switch Suit Issued
MICROSOFT CORP: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30
MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwebel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York

MIDLAND CREDIT: Sofer Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Wetzler Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Court Junks Stipulation to Stay Patton Suit
MILBERG LLP: District of Arizona Certifies Class in Bobbitt Suit
MUD WTR INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sept 22 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
NCR CORPORATION: Achilles Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
NEO TECHNOLOGY: July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
NETFLIX INC: New Boston VSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEW HORIZON: Extension to Reply to Class Cert Opposition Sought

NEW PEOPLES BANK: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia
NEW YORK ELEGANT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Landsdown Files Suit in D. South Carolina
NIELLO MOTOR: Mcguckin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NOOM INC: Bid to Compel Sampling Protocol in Nichols Partly Granted

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Class Certification Hearing Set for July 12
OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due June 18
OHIO RENAL: Freeman Conditional Certification Bid Due August 25
OPINEL USA: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OREGON DOC: Menefee Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney

OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Albrecht Case Pending Resolution in Maney
OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Yocum Case Pending Resolution in Maney
OUTLAW LAB: Reply to Skyline Class Certification Bid Due June 1
PACKAGED SEAFOOD: Initial Approval Bids in Antitrust Suit Tossed
PARKING REIT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 16

PARKING REIT: Settlement Hearing on Magowski Suit Set for July 16
PASCHALL TRUCK: Seeks Oral Argument for Rule 23 Class Cert. Bid
PAUL KEMPER: Shaw Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Eastman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Trial Not Needed in Guzman Suit

PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Amended Complaint Drops Class Allegations
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: CA Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 10
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sept. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought

R&R EXPRESS: Rood Seeks to Strike Late Response to Class Cert. Bid
RADIUS GLOBAL: Dunlap Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
RAZVAN POP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due August 16
READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
RENEE'S GARDEN: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Fontaine FDCPA Suit
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines OK'd
ROMEO POWER: California Wage & Hour Class Suit Still Stayed
ROMEO POWER: Faces Toner Class Action in New York
ROMEO POWER: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set for July 15

ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks to Certify Class of Deliver Drivers
RT INC: Faces Camp Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
RUMPKE TRANS: Bid to Limit Certification Discovery Junked
RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Must Supplement Class Cert. Bid by June 2
SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order on Garth Suit

SHEF INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cullen Class Suit
SILVER FERN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 25, 2022

SNAP FINANCE: Extension to File Reply for Class Cert. Bid Sought
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Henderson
SPARK NETWORKS: Cyber Security Related Suit Stayed
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Second Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Asks Court to Amend May 5, 2021 Order in O'Neill

SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION: Giron Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
SYMETRA LIFE: Fails to Pay Claims Examiners' OT, Blier Suit Claims
T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood et al., Seeks $2MM Class Settlement
TARGET CORPORATION: Bid for Class Certification Continued to June 7
TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification

TERRA TECH: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Putative Class Suit Pending
THERMO TECH: Bid for FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought
THESAN USA: Zhejiang Files Amended Bid for Default Judgment
TOGETHER CREDIT: Settlement Deal in Chambers Suit Gets Final Nod
U.S. BANCORP: Pension Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Bid Tossed

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Irving Suit
UNICO AMERICAN: Unit Faces Anchors & Whales Putative Class Suit
UNITED VALET: Ascencio Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
UNUM GROUP: Class of Specialists Conditionally Certified in Loomis
VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Must Serve Class Cert. Report by July 30

VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Related Class Suit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Putative Securities Class Actions
VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Underway
VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Class Cert. Bid
VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7
WASHINGTON DOC: Plaintiffs Win Provisional Class Certification
WEST COVINA: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
WEST ROAD: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 12
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Fain v. WVDHHR Suit

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Court Moots Draney Pending Bid to Certify Class
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank
XL FLEET: Suh and Kumar Putative Class Suits Underway
XO GLOBAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
XPRESSPA GROUP: Finalization of Collins Settlement Underway

YWL USA: Attorney's Fee Award Reduced to $17K in Wan Suit

                            *********

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Mediation Over Membership Fees Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that mediation is ongoing in
the class action suit related to its collection of Annual
Membership Fee.

In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the
Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other.

The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019.  

An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company and one of
the plaintiffs, and in June 2020, issued a decision that the
arbitration agreement is unenforceable against that plaintiff.

The Company filed its challenge to the arbitrator's decision in
August 2020. The trial court upheld the arbitrator's decision, and
the appellate court denied the Company's writ petition for review.


The Company answered the complaint as to the plaintiff in November
2020, denying the allegations and asserting various defenses.
During the first quarter of 2021, the Company and the plaintiffs
participated in court-ordered mediation.

The parties are working towards a settlement agreement and are
continuing to discuss settlement terms. In light of the early stage
of the settlement negotiations, the Company is unable to estimate
the amount or range of loss.

Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from the Company's insurance
provider, have been recorded as general and administrative expenses
in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Additional
attorneys' fees in excess of those covered will be expensed as
incurred.

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


8X8 INC: Joint Mediation in Rivas PAGA Suit Set for September
-------------------------------------------------------------
8X8 Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2021, that the joint mediation in the class
action and the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) lawsuit
complaint initiated by Denise Rivas, is scheduled on September
2021.

On September 21, 2020, the Company received a copy of a letter
filed by a former employee, Plaintiff Denise Rivas, with the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) providing
notice of the Plaintiff's intent to bring a PAGA claim, on behalf
of the Company's non-exempt employees based in California, for
alleged California wage and hour practices violations.

On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a separate class action
complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company
in which she alleges 10 causes of action, on behalf of herself and
all of the Company's non-exempt employees based in California for
the last four years, related to violations of California state wage
and hour practices and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Class Complaint was served on the Company on September 29,
2020. On October 28, 2020, the Company filed a general denial of
all claims and asserted various affirmative defenses.

On October 29, 2020, the Company removed the matter to Federal
Court.

On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a companion PAGA lawsuit
complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Company,
in which she alleges 6 violations of California state wage and hour
practices for all of the Company's current and former non-exempt
employees based in California from September 16, 2019 to the
present.

The PAGA Complaint was served on the Company on December 11, 2020.
On January 26, 2021, the Company filed a general denial of all
claims and asserted various affirmative defenses to the PAGA
Complaint.

Both actions are scheduled for a joint mediation in September 2021,
and discovery is stayed in both actions pending completion of the
mediation.

Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services,
and equipment that enable voice and video communication over
Internet Protocol networks.  Through its Packet8 software suite and
related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls and
perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP
technology.


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Agreement in Principle Reached in Skiadas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties in Skiadas
v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al., have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action for a payment of $8.4 million.

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al., No.
1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry
Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements
regarding the likelihood of approval for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approval for the EDSIVOTM New Drug Application
(NDA).

With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned
Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The Lead Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint on February 28, 2020 and the Company moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020. On June 16,
2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's
motion to dismiss.

The Company filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on
August 7, 2020, and the Court held an initial conference on August
17, 2020.

After obtaining leave from the Court to do so, the Lead Plaintiff
filed his Third Amended Complaint on February 4, 2021.

Subsequent to March 31, 2021, the parties have reached an agreement
in principle to settle this action for a payment of $8.4 million,
which is subject to written documentation and Court approval.

Payment of the settlement will be made by the Company's insurance
carriers.

Acer said, "As of March 31, 2021, the Company has recognized $8.4
million for the proposed settlement as a loss in other current
liabilities and also recognized a receivable from its insurance
carrier of an equal amount in prepaid expenses and other current
assets."

Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for
serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts.


ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAM GINSBERG INTERNATIONAL
INC., and ADAM GINSBERG, Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-010616 (Fla.
17th Jud. Cir. Ct., May 27, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he received automated text messages from
the Defendant to his cellular telephone number ending in 9080 on or
about September 27, 2020, September 28, 2020, and May 19, 2021
encouraging him to purchase its property, goods or services. The
Defendants allegedly utilized an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) in transmitting the text messages as it is demonstrated by
the impersonal and generic nature of the Defendants' text messages.
At no point in time did the Plaintiff provided the Defendants with
his prior express consent to be contacted by text messages using an
ATDS, he added.

As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff suffered actual harm, including invasion of her privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption of his daily
life, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking
actual and statutory damages, treble damages, an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging
activity, and prohibiting the Defendants from using an ATDS without
the recipient's consent to receive calls made with such equipment,
and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Adams Ginsberg International Inc. provides consulting and
professional services. Adam Ginsberg is the Chief Executive
Officer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

AENZA SAA: Final Approval of Settlement in 2017 Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Aenza S.A.A.  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the final approval of the
settlement of the class action suit filed in 2017, is still
pending.

A class action civil lawsuit was filed in 2017 against the company
and certain of its former directors and former and current
executive officers in the United States.

In February 2020, the company executed a term sheet with the
plaintiffs that provides the general terms and conditions for a
final settlement agreement.

On July 2, 2020, the company executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement formalizing the terms of the settlement.

The settlement received preliminary approval from the court on
August 18, 2020, but remains subject to final approval of the
court.

The settlement terms stipulate that the civil lawsuit will be fully
and finally dismissed in exchange for a total settlement amount of
US$20 million, of which the company is responsible for US$15
million, and the company recorded provisions of US$15 million as of
December 31, 2020.

The remaining US$5 million was paid by the company's D&O insurers.
The company made an initial payment of US$350,000 into the
settlement fund escrow account in September 2020.

The settlement terms stipulate that the remaining $14,650,000, plus
interest of 5% per annum running from September 17, 2020, must be
paid by the company by June 30, 2021.

The company had initiated discussions with the plaintiffs regarding
a deferral of this payment, but the company cannot assure you that
an agreement will be reached.

No members of the plaintiff class filed objections to the
settlement prior to the November 24, 2020 deadline for such
objections to be filed.

On December 21, 2020, a magistrate judge held a hearing on the
motion for final approval of the settlement, which final approval
motion remains pending.

Aenza said, "If the court does not order final approval of the
settlement, or the company fails to comply with the terms of the
settlement agreement, we would expect the lawsuit to resume."

Aenza S.A.A. the largest engineering and construction company in
Peru as measured by revenues during 2020, and one of the largest
publicly-traded engineering and construction companies in Latin
America as measured by market capitalization as of December 31,
2020, with strong complementary businesses in infrastructure and
real estate. The company is bases in Lima, Peru.


AGEAGLE AERIAL: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Lopez Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action suit suit
initiated by Shawn Lopez, is pending.

On February 26, 2021, Shawn Lopez filed a shareholder class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the period from September 2, 2019 to February 18, 2021
against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., J. Michael Drozd, Nicole
Fernandez-McGovern, Bret Chilcott, and Barrett Mooney.

The case is captioned Lopez v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01810 (C.D. Cal.) and was assigned to
District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Charles F.
Eick. Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, among other things,
that Defendants purportedly violated the securities laws by making
or approving statements that contained allegedly false
representations concerning the Company's business relationship with
an e-commerce company.

As of this date and to the best of the company's knowledge, neither
AgEagle nor the individual Defendants have been served or have
agreed to accept service of the summons and complaint.  

As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service
with the Court concerning service upon any Defendant.  

On April 27, 2021, a number of non-party movants filed motions
seeking the Court's appointment to serve as lead plaintiff(s) in
the action, for the further appointment of certain lead counsel, as
well as the consolidation of this action with the Madrid action
discussed below.  

The pending motions have been made returnable with the Court on or
before June 7, 2021, following the Court's resolution of which it
is common for the newly-appointed lead plaintiff(s) to amend the
complaint and allegations underlying the claims.  

AgEagle said, "For this reason, we cannot provide a meaningful
evaluation at this time of the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome."

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. produces, supports and operates
technologically advanced drone systems and solutions for the
fast-emerging unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. The company
is based in Wichita, Kansas.


AGEAGLE AERIAL: Continues to Defend Madrid Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Cristian Jesus
Merino Madrid.

On March 4, 2021, Cristian Jesus Merino Madrid filed a shareholder
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California seeking unspecified monetary damages for
alleged violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the period from September 2, 2019 to February 18, 2021
against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., J. Michael Drozd, Nicole
Fernandez-McGovern, Bret Chilcott, and Barrett Mooney (captioned
Madrid v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01991 (C.D. Cal.)).

Plaintiff's initial complaint alleges, similar to the Lopez case
described above, that Defendants, among other things, purportedly
violated the securities laws by making or approving statements that
contained allegedly false representations concerning the Company's
business relationship with an e-commerce company.

On March 9, 2021, this case was transferred to District Judge
Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick as a
related case to Lopez v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:21-cv-01810.

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. produces, supports and operates
technologically advanced drone systems and solutions for the
fast-emerging unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) industry. The company
is based in Wichita, Kansas.


AIRESPA WORLDWIDE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airespa Worldwide
Wholesale, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Airespa
Worldwide Wholesale, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03029 (E.D.N.Y., May 27,
2021).

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

Airespa Worldwide Wholesale, LLC -- https://www.rehabmart.com/ --
products from the airespa-worldwide-wholesale-llc brand sold online
by Rehabmart.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Narrows Claims in N-N Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N-N, et al., v. ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05295-EK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Eric Komitee entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
First,
      Second, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action.

   2. denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third
      and Sixth Causes of Action, except that plaintiff
      O-D-B's claims under the Third and Sixth Causes of Action
which  
      are dismissed.

   3. dismissing as moot the claims of N-N and G-V-R;

   4. directing the Clerk of Court to substitute the following
      defendants in the case caption: Alejandro Mayorkas for Kevin

      McAleenan; Tracy Renaud for Kenneth Cuccinelli; Connie Nolan

      for Donald Neufeld; and Merrick Garland for William Barr.

The Court said, "the plaintiffs whose petitions had been pending
for over 90 days as of January 17, 2017 have stated a claim that
agency action has been unlawfully withheld. The motion to dismiss
Counts III and VI of the Complaint must be as to all plaintiffs in
that sub-class except O-D-B, whose claims on these counts are
dismissed because her application had been pending for fewer than
90 days when the revised rule went into effect."

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzg8fx at no
extra charge.[CC]

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Briefing on Class Certification Stayed in Perry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perry v. Allstate
Indemnity Company, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01522 (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered an order staying briefing
on class certification until it issues its ruling on the pending
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

After the Court issues its ruling it will set a new briefing
schedule on class certification says Judge Boyko.

The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance.

Allstate provides insurance products and services.[CC]

ALTA DEVICES: Class of Employees Certified in Gunderson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT GUNDERSON, DANIEL
PATTERSON, BEN LENAIL, BRENDAN KAYES, JAMES BUSTAMANTE, OCTAVI
SEMONIN and ANNETT SUESS, behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, v. ALTA DEVICES, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-08017-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of the Class
      is granted:

      "All former employees of Alta Devices, Inc. who worked at or

      reported to the facility located at 545 Oakmead Pkwy,
      Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (the Facility) until they were laid off,

      furloughed and/or terminated, without cause on their part, on

      or about October 21, 2019, within thirty days of that date or

      thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected
      consequence of, the mass layoff and/or plant closing
      occurring on or about October 21, 2019, or thereafter, and
      who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class."

   2. The Plaintiffs' Motion to appoint Plaintiffs Scott Gunderson,

      Daniel Patterson, Ben Lenail, Brendan Kayes, James
      Bustamante, Octavi Semonin, and Annett Suess as the class
      representatives is granted.

   3. Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C. and the
      Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP are appointed as co-class
      counsel.

   4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for the Court's approval of the form
      and manner of notice to the Class is granted.

   5. No later than five business days following entry of this
      Order, the Defendant shall provide Class Counsel with an
      electronic spreadsheet containing the names and last known
      addresses of the former employees encompassed by the Class
      (the Class Spreadsheet).

   6. Class Counsel shall mail the Notice, First Class postage
      prepaid, within 10 business days of receiving the Class
      Spreadsheet, to the proposed members of the Class at their
      last known addresses as shown on the Class Spreadsheet.

Alta Devices was a US-based specialty gallium arsenide PV
manufacturer, which claims to have achieved a solar cell conversion
efficiency record of 29.1%, as certified by Germany's Fraunhofer
ISE CalLab.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wNaMgH at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON LOGISTICS: Bell Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon Logistics
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Bell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon Logistics Inc.,
Haskins Prime Logistics LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00456-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
May 27, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Amazon Logistics -- https://logistics.amazon.com/ -- is expanding
its network of delivery providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Phone: (501) 891-6000
          Email: chris@whlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Gregory Steven Ivester
          14210 Ridgewood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 658-5718
          Email: givester@robinettefirm.com


AMAZON.COM: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN VANCE, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01084-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class
certification motion:

   Deadline to complete discovery on class      August 30, 2021
   certification (not to be construed as a
   bifurcation of discovery):

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion       September 30, 2021
   for class certification:

   Deadline for Amazon.com Inc.                 November 15, 2021
   (Amazon) to respond if Plaintiffs do
   not submit expert testimony in support
   of their class certification motion:

   Deadline for Amazon to respond if            December 3, 2021
   Plaintiffs do submit expert testimony
   in support of their class certification
   motion:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if          34 days after
   Amazon does not submit expert testimony      Amazon's response
   in support of its response:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if          51 days after
   Amazon does submit expert testimony          Amazon's response
   in support of its response:

Judge Robart says that the court will set further case schedule
deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after
ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for
Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiffs at
any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in
this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by
order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will
alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to
complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily
constitute good cause. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery
matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court "direct[s]
that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant
must request a conference with the court" by notifying Ashleigh
Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v)."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yNT6TZ at no extra charge.[CC]

AMERICAN GOLF: Marciano Sues Over Illegal Retention of Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH A. MARCIANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, JAMES MICHAEL
HINCKLEY, LAWRENCE A. GOODFIELD JR., and any other related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 512664/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and the New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The Plaintiff, together with other similarly situated employees,
worked for the Defendants as service employees who perform
individual duties in the positions of wait staff, waiters, servers,
captains, bussers, bartenders, food runners, maître d's, bridal
attendants, and in various other related customarily-tipped trades.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withheld and
retained portions of gratuities provided to service employees,
including but not limited to those collected as Mandatory.

In addition, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully
evaded recordkeeping requirements of applicable New York State law
by failing to maintain proper and complete records of service
charges in the nature of gratuities, as required under 12 NYCRR
Section 146-2.

On behalf of himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff seeks litigation costs, attorneys' fees,
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, just,
or equitable.

American Golf Corporation operates a restaurant and catering
venues. The Individual Defendants maintain control over the
premises and the Plaintiff's work environment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550

ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK: Caldwell's Amended Class Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMMETT CALDWELL, DANIEL RICE, MICHAEL LEONARD, JAMES
BRUNO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-1090 (VSB)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York:

    (i) granted the joint motion of the Archdiocese of New York
        and the Diocese of Brooklyn to dismiss the Amended Class
        Action Complaint of the Plaintiffs; and

   (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' request for the scheduling of a
        status conference in the instant action.

The Plaintiffs are former participants in the Defendants'
Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Programs ("IRCPs" or
"Programs") who released their claims of childhood sexual abuse
against one of the Defendants through the Programs in the period
between October 2016 and February 2019.  The Plaintiffs bring the
action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
against the Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation (Count I)
and negligent misrepresentation (Count II).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented material
facts in procuring releases from them of their claims, by
representing that: (1) the process would result in fair and
reasonable offers of settlement for claims of clergy child sexual
abuse; (2) the IRCP administrators ("IRCP Administrators," "Program
Administrators," or "Administrators") were "independent," when in
fact they were hired and compensated by Defendants and subject to
material limitations and directions dictated by Defendants; (3) the
settlement offers made by the independent IRCP Administrators were
fair and reasonable, when in fact they were materially affected by
a monetary range and cap determined and imposed by Defendants; and
(4) the IRCP Administrators would take into account the
perpetrators' records of child sexual abuse reports or allegations
in making settlement offers.

The Plaintiffs further allege negligent misrepresentation, in that
the Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to them, and breached such
duty by: (1) failing to advise the Plaintiffs of how the proposed
New York Child Victims Act ("Act") might affect their claims; (2)
failing to advise Plaintiffs of the improving prospects for
enactment of the Act at the time of initiation of their IRCPs; (3)
failing to inform the Plaintiffs that they were lobbying to prevent
legislation that would allow them to bring their claims in court,
and instead leading them and the class to believe that there could
be no recourse to the offers made in the IRCPs; (4) representing to
victims-survivors that the IRCP process would result in fair and
reasonable offers of settlement for claims of clergy child sexual
abuse; (5) representing that the IRCP Administrators were
independent although they were hired and compensated by the
Defendants and subject to material limitations and directions
dictated by the Defendants; (6) failing to advise the Plaintiffs
that the IRCP settlement offers were materially affected by a
monetary range and cap determined and imposed by the Defendants;
and (7) misrepresenting that the IRCP Administrators would fairly
take into account the perpetrator's history of child sexual abuse
reports or allegations in making settlement offers.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration rescinding or voiding the
releases signed by them and the other putative class members
pursuant to CPLR 3001.  They also seek damages for their underlying
claims.

On March 30, 2020, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Complaint.  On April 1, 2020, Judge Broderick
directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 20,
2020 or any opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss by
April 30, 2020.  The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on
April 20, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint.  On June 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
their memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On June 29, 2020, the Defendants filed their reply.

On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a letter motion requesting the
scheduling of a status conference in the matter for the stated
purpose of moving the case forward.

Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the bases that the facts
alleged in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to sustain the
claims asserted, and that the Plaintiffs fail to plead fraud with
particularity as required under Rule 9(b).

A. Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim

The Defendants argue that (1) the Plaintiffs do not plead their
claims for fraud with sufficient particularity since they do not
identify the specific allegedly fraudulent statements that were
made to them or who made them and Plaintiffs' allegations regarding
a lack of independence are based purely on conjecture; (2) the
Plaintiffs do not plead Defendants' omissions regarding the
possible enactment of the Child Victims Act with sufficient
specificity; (3) the Plaintiffs do not adequately plead that they
justifiably relied on Defendants' statements; and (4) the
Defendants' statements concerning the "independence" of the IRCP or
its Administrators, as well as the "fairness" or "reasonableness"
of the amounts offered, were statements of opinion, which cannot
form the basis for a fraudulent inducement claim.

Judge Broderick opines that although well-pled facts that the
Defendants directed and limited the settlement amounts obtainable
by IRCP participants might belie the Defendants' assertions of the
Programs' independence, the Plaintiffs' bare assertions that the
Defendants indeed interfered in the administration of these
Programs, without any accompanying factual allegations to support
those assertions, do not rise to a plausible claim that Defendants'
representations of independence were indeed fraudulent.  As such,
even if the Plaintiffs had pled with specificity that the
Defendants made representations that the Programs and their
Administrators were independent, Plaintiffs' failure to plead facts
that would explain "why the statements were fraudulent" is fatal to
their fraud claims.  Count I is accordingly dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

B. Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

With respect to the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim,
the Defendants argue that the "Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts
that could support the 'special relationship' required to assert a
negligent misrepresentation claim, particularly given that the
settlements were arms-length transactions in which the Defendants
owed no fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs."  They further argue that
the Plaintiffs "cannot show that their alleged 'reliance' upon the
Defendants' alleged misrepresentations regarding the CVA's
likelihood of passage was reasonable in light of the legislation's
extensive media coverage.

Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants
had information about growing popular support and "the improving
prospects of passage of child victims' legislation" that "was not
publicly known."  However, they do not specify or describe what
exactly the information entailed or how it would place the
Defendants in any superior position to the Plaintiffs in
determining the timing or prospect of the bill's enactment.  Nor do
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "induced them to forebear
from performing their own due diligence."  As the allegedly
withheld information about the Child Victims Act was readily
ascertainable by Plaintiffs' ordinary diligence, the Plaintiffs
have not shown justifiable reliance for purposes of their negligent
misrepresentation claim.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to sustain two elements of their
pleading burden with respect to the Defendants' alleged negligent
withholding of information about the Child Victims Act, and failed
to plead the remainder of their negligent misrepresentation
allegations with the specificity required by Rule 9(b).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Count II is dismissed.

C. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiffs nonetheless request the opportunity to amend to
correct any pleading deficiencies "in the event that the Court were
to deem any element of their claims insufficiently alleged."  As
"complaints dismissed under Rule 9(b) are 'almost always' dismissed
with leave to amend," Juduge Broderick granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend , in light of the above discussion of the Amended
Complaint's deficiencies.  The Plaintiffs should provide, in any
second amended complaint, additional facts that would cure the
pleading deficiencies discussed in the Opinion & Order.

Conclusion

Because the Plaintiffs have not pled their fraudulent
misrepresentation claim with the particularity required by Rule
9(b), have not met two elements of their pleading burden with
respect to the Defendants' alleged negligent withholding of
information about the Child Victims Act, and have failed to plead
the remainder of their negligent misrepresentation allegations with
the specificity required by Rule 9(b), Judge Broderick granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs
are directed to file any amendments within 30 days of the filing of
the Opinion & Order.

The Defendants' original motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint is rendered moot in light of the Plaintiffs' filing of
their Amended Complaint.  The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' letter
request for the scheduling of a status conference.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open
motions at Documents 9, 23, and 31.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5c5d4u9s from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Herman -- jhcyman@hermanlaw.com -- Stuart Samuel
Mermelstein -- smermelstein@hermanlaw.com -- Herman Law Firm PA, in
Boca Raton, Florida, Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Edna Doris Guerrasio -- eguerrasio@proskauer.com -- Margaret
Antinori Dale -- mdale@proskauer.com -- Bettina Barasch Plevan --
bplevan@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, in New York City,
Counsel for Defendant The Archdiocese of New York.

John Morgan Callagy -- jcallagy@kelleydrye.com -- Michael Charles
Lynch -- mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- Randall L. Morrison, Jr. --
rmorrison@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Bettina
Barasch Plevan, Proskauer Rose LLP, in New York City, Counsel for
Defendant The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.


ARCIMOTO INC: Barnette Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit entitled, David Barnette v.
Arcimoto, Inc., Mark Frohnmayer and Douglas Campoli.

On April 19, 2021, litigation styled David Barnette v. Arcimoto,
Inc., Mark Frohnmayer and Douglas Campoli, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  

The action, in which none of the defendants has yet been served,
purports to be a class action on behalf of all those who purchased
the company's common stock between February 14, 2018 and March 22,
2021 and is based on the research report dated March 23, 2021
produced by Bonitas Research, LLC, a short seller of our common
stock with the stated intention of driving down the market price of
our common stock.  

Although the lawsuit is purportedly a class action, no motion to
certify a class has been filed at this time.

Arcimoto said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend
this action."

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.

BANK OF AMERICA: Cardholders Class Gets Provisional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER YICK, et al., v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding preliminary
injunction.

The Court said, "The plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong
likelihood of success on their claims that Bank of America (BofA)
has violated, and continues to violate, the Electronic Fund
Transfers Act by failing to conduct an adequate, good faith
investigation when cardholders report unauthorized charges, and
often simply freezing cardholder accounts based on a faulty
screening process. This has resulted (and will likely continue to
result) in the improper denial of cardholders' reimbursement claims
for unauthorized charges, the unlawful deprivation of provisional
credits for such charges, and the inability to access benefits to
which cardholders are entitled. For similar reasons, the plaintiffs
have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claims
that BofA is systematically breaching its contracts with
cardholders and violating California's Unfair Competition Law."

The  Provisional certification of a class of all cardholders who
call to report unauthorized charges to their accounts is warranted
for purposes of a preliminary injunction.

BofA is wrong to argue that the named plaintiffs or the class are
categorically barred from obtaining interim relief. There is
Article III standing because many of the named plaintiffs were
being injured by the conduct described in Section 1 at the time
they filed their lawsuits, and some of the named plaintiffs
continue to suffer injury today. Buckeye Tree Lodge v. Expedia,
Inc., 2020 WL 5372246, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020); see Friends
of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.,
528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000). And the evidence presented by BofA in
response to this preliminary injunction motion does not refute the
plaintiffs' strong showing that class members are likely to suffer
similar violations in the future. The harm being suffered by the
class members is irreparable. The class is comprised of:

   "people who depend on unemployment benefits to get through the
   pandemic. As the plaintiffs' evidence shows, continued denial of

   these benefits will seriously hinder the ability of many class
   members to feed their families and keep a roof over their
   heads."

Thus, although the general rule is that financial harm is not
"irreparable" (because plaintiffs can generally recoup the money if
they ultimately prevail), this is precisely the type of case where
the exception to the general rule applies. Just as companies can
establish irreparable harm by showing that losing money will likely
cause them to shut down, human beings can establish irreparable
harm by showing that losing wages or benefits will likely cause
them to be evicted, go hungry, or be denied necessary medical care,
the Court adds.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bZySNC at no extra charge.[CC]

BAY MOUNTAIN: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bay Mountain Air, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 21CV382011 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
May 17, 2021), is brought to challenge systemic illegal employment
practices by the Defendants resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges that Defendants
have engaged in, among other things, a system of willful violations
of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and
Wage Order 16 by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and
customs that knowingly deny employees: wages for all hours worked
(regular and overtime); compensation for improper/inadequate meal
periods; compensation for denied/proper rest breaks;
accurate/itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; and
reimbursement for business-related expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November 10, 2019 to
September 18, 2020 as an installer of air conditioners.

The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and
establishment within California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ario Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
          Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2760 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: (415) 695-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 695-1006


BERMAN & RABIN: Faces Barwick Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERRI BARWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERMAN & RABIN, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00659-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 26, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking
redress for its alleged unlawful collection practices that violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about June 15, 2020 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt that the Plaintiff has incurred for
personal, family, or household purposes, specifically for a
short-term installment loan. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant provided private information regarding her and her
alleged debt, and other private details to RevSpring, a third-party
mail vendor who prepared, printed, and mailed the letter, thereby
violating the FDCPA and WCA. The Plaintiff also asserts that she
never provided her consent to the Defendant to disclose her
financial or personal information to a mail vendor.

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and
costs, and other relief as the Court deems proper.

Berman & Rabin, P.A. operates a collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Tel: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

BIGGS & GREENSLADE: Can Compel Arbitration in Dean FDCPA-TDCA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH B. DEAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIGGS & GREENSLADE, P.C. and ATLAS
CREDIT CO., INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-21-0242 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, granted the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Plaintiff Dean asserts individual and collective claims against
Biggs & Greenslade ("B&G") and Atlas for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.
("FDCPA") and the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code Section
392, et seq. ("TDCA").  The Plaintiff is the borrower under a
Consumer Credit Disclosure - Promissory Note dated Feb. 6, 2020,
and made in favor of Atlas.

Atlas engaged B&G to collect on the alleged debt.  B&G sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter dated Aug. 26, 2020.  The letter
stated that "B&G has been retained by Atlas Credit Co., Inc., to
collect the outstanding obligation owed by Plaintiff in the amount
of $1066.50."  The Collection Letter further stated: "If
arrangements for the prompt payment of this debt are not made
within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, we will
recommend to our client that suit be filed against you."6 The
letter instructed Plaintiff to "send a certified check or money
order to your local Atlas Credit branch in the amount of $1066.50
made payable to Atlas Credit Co., Inc.," and warned Plaintiff that
if she failed to pay the full amount or otherwise contact B&G
within thirty days of receipt of the letter, B&G was "authorized to
pursue all legal actions necessary to collect this debt."

On Sept. 9, 2020, the Plaintiff sent to B&G (with a copy to Atlas)
a written dispute and request for verification letter via Certified
Mail.

On Jan. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action "on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated," alleging that
the Defendants violated the FDCPA and TDCA.  She alleges that the
Collection Letter employed false, deceptive, or misleading
representations, including the representation that the Defendants
would give her 30 days to satisfy the debt before commencing legal
action, because Atlas filed suit pro se against the Plaintiff on
Sept. 1, 2020 -- a mere six days after the date of the Collection
Letter.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the letter illegally demanded
that she arrange to pay the debt within 30 days from the date of
the letter, when the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) affords
her 30 days after receipt of the Collection Letter to dispute the
validity of the debt."  The Plaintiff also alleges that by
threatening to recommend that Atlas take legal action to collect
the debt, B&G's letter overshadowed or was inconsistent with her
dispute rights under the FDCPA.  She seeks to hold Atlas
vicariously liable under the TDCA for the unlawful collection
activities carried out by B&G on its behalf.

On March 12, 2021, the Defendants filed their Motion to Compel
contending that the Plaintiff must arbitrate her individual claims
against Defendants.  The Plaintiff responded on April 9, 2021,
arguing that (1) the Defendants have failed to establish the
existence of a binding arbitration agreement between Atlas and the
Plaintiff; (2) as the Plaintiff's case is a putative class action,
the Defendants are unable to compel arbitration; (3) Atlas waived
any right to compel arbitration by suing the Plaintiff in state
court;19 and (4) even if the Court would compel her to arbitrate
her claims against Atlas, B&G should not be able to likewise compel
arbitration because B&G was not a party to the arbitration
contract.

On April 16, 2021, the Defendants filed their reply.

Analysis

A. The Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

The Plaintiff argues that Atlas has not satisfied its burden of
showing that a binding arbitration agreement exists between it and
the Plaintiff.  Atlas argues that it has carried its burden by
proving the existence of the Note.

Judge Lake opines that the Plaintiff does not challenge the
sufficiency of the declaration or the authenticity of the Note.
She offers no evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact
about whether an arbitration agreement exists.  The Plaintiff
"cannot avoid compelled arbitration by generally denying the facts
upon which the right to arbitration rests," but "must identify
specific evidence in the record demonstrating a material factual
dispute for trial."  Because the Plaintiff has not done so, the
Judge concludes that a valid arbitration agreement exists.

B. Scope of the Arbitration Agreement

Whether the Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of the
arbitration agreement is a question for the arbitrator, not the
Court, to decide, Judge Lake holds.  Express adoption of the AAA
Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties
agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.  The Plaintiff and Atlas
expressly incorporated the AAA Commercial Rules into their
arbitration agreement.  These rules state at R-7(a) that "the
arbitrator will have the power to rule on his or her own
jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the
existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to
the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim."  The Judge
concludes that there is a valid arbitration agreement and that an
arbitrator may determine whether the Plaintiff's FDCPA and TDCA
claims are within the agreement's scope.

C. Arbitrability of a Putative Class Action

The Plaintiff argues that Atlas is unable to compel arbitration
because her case is a putative class action.  The Defendants argue
that the Note's silence on class arbitration means that the Court
must compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims.

Because the Note is silent as to whether class claims should be
arbitrated, Judge Lake finds that classwide arbitration in the case
is not appropriate.  But the Defendants are not seeking to compel
arbitration on a classwide basis -- they are seeking to compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims.  The Plaintiff
indicated by clear and unmistakable language that any claims
arising from her agreement with Atlas would be decided by
arbitration.  Because none of the policy concerns that underlay the
Court's decision in Varela are present, compelling the Plaintiff to
arbitrate her individual claims will not deny her the benefits of
arbitration.

D. Waiver

The Plaintiff argues that Atlas waived its right to compel
arbitration by suing the Plaintiff in state court.  The Defendants
reply that this argument lacks merit.

Judge Lake opines that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence
as to the "time and expense" she incurred defending herself from
Atlas's state-court claims.  Nor does the record show that the
Defendants failed to "timely assert their right to arbitrate.
Moreover, the Note makes clear that even if Atlas does not "enforce
its rights every time, it can still enforce them later."  While
such a provision does not prevent the court from finding waiver, it
does suggest that Atlas' decision to deal with a claim in small
claims court should not prevent it from later enforcing its right
to arbitrate a completely separate claim.  The Judge finds that the
Defendants did not waive the right to arbitrate the Plaintiff's
claims.

E. Arbitration By a Nonparty

The Plaintiff argues that even if the Court would compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against Atlas, B&G should not
likewise be able to compel arbitration because B&G was not a party
to the arbitration contract.  The Defendants argue that B&G may
assert its right to compel arbitration because intertwined claims
estoppel applies.

Judge Lake finds that all the facts alleged against B&G are
inextricably enmeshed and have a significant relationship to the
terms of the Note, and thus B&G may compel arbitration despite
being a nonsignatory.

F. Dismissing the Case

For the reasons he explained, Judge Lake concludes that the
Defendants may enforce the arbitration agreement and compel
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims.  The Defendants have asked
the Court to stay this case pending a final arbitration.  When all
issues raised in an action are bound by an agreement to arbitrate,
the Court has discretion to dismiss the action.  Because the
Plaintiff's claims must be submitted to arbitration, retaining
jurisdiction and staying the action will serve no purpose.
Accordingly, Judge Lake dismisses the action without prejudice.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons he stated, Judge Lake granted the Defendants' Joint
Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed without prejudice the
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pk7r8ve from
Leagle.com.


BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Suit Wins Initial Class Cert. for Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lauren Biegel, Greg
Maroney, Ryan Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, Stephen Bradshaw, Angela
Farve and Christina Henderson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No.
7:20-cv-03032-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an
order as follows:

   1. Stay of the Action

      All non-settlement-related proceedings in the Action are
      stayed and suspended until further order of the Court.

   2. Preliminary Class Certification for Settlement Purposes
Only.

      Having made the findings set forth above, the Court
      preliminarily certifies a plaintiff class for settlement
      purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23(a), 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), in accordance with the terms of
      the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily finds,
      based on the terms of the Settlement described in the
      Settlement Agreement.

   3. Class Definition

      The Settlement Class is defined as All consumers in the
      United  States who purchased the Products during the Class
      Period. The Settlement Class excludes the Released Parties,
      any government entities, persons who made such purchase for
      the purpose of resale, persons who made a valid, timely
      request for exclusion, and Hon. Cathy Seibel and Randall W.
      Wulff, and any members of their immediate family.

   4. Class Representatives and Class Counsel

      The Court appoints Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Spencer
      Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., and Kevin Laukaitis of

      Shub Law Firm LLC as class counsel for the Settlement Class.

      Lauren Biegel, Greg Maroney, Stephen Bradshaw, Angela Farve,

      Ryan Cosgrove, Clive Rhoden, and Christina Henderson are
      hereby appointed as the Class Representatives.

   5. Preliminary Settlement Approval

      The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement set forth in

      the Settlement Agreement as being within the range of
      possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, within
      the meaning of Rule 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act of
      2005, subject to final consideration at the Final Approval
      Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vxcymc at no extra charge.[CC]

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Porter Sues Over Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Porter, Jr., individually and behalf of all those similarly
situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11316-BRM-ESK (D.N.J., May 17, 2021), is brought to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading advertising relating to the
sale and lease of the Vehicles and to obtain redress for those who
have purchased or leased the Vehicles across the United States in
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff brings on behalf of a proposed nationwide class for
the benefit and protection of purchasers and lessees of Defendant's
model year 2021 BMW 430i and 430i xDrive vehicles. The Defendant
deceptively markets and advertises the Vehicles as having LED
Headlights with Cornering Lights when, in fact, they do not. This
causes a significant safety issue, as customers are led to believe
that their Vehicles have safety features that will assist them with
driving around dark corners, and may rely on those non-existent
features, to their detriment. The Defendant has deceptively
marketed, advertised, and sold the Vehicles as having Cornering
Lights, when, in fact, the Vehicles do not have such lighting
systems.

Instead, BMW informed the Plaintiff that his Vehicle only had LED
Headlights, and not Cornering Lights. In other words, his Vehicle,
contrary to BMW's representations at the time of purchase, will not
provide the promised brightness around dark curves. The Plaintiff
and other members of the Class would have paid less for the Vehicle
or not purchased or leased the Vehicle had they known that BMW's
representations were false, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a model year 2021 BMW 430i from BMW of
Delray Beach in Delray Beach, Florida, an authorized agent of the
Defendant.

The Defendant is one of the world's largest and best-known
manufacturers of luxury vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Phone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jcshah@millershah.com
                 nfinkelman@millershah.com


BROOKLYN IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Carlson Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a verified class action suit initiated by
Douglas Carlson.

On March 25, 2021, BIT Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Brooklyn Inc. (then known as NTN Buzztime, Inc.) merged with and
into Brooklyn LLC, with Brooklyn LLC surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Brooklyn Inc.. This transaction was completed in
accordance with the terms of an agreement and plan of merger and
reorganization dated August 12, 2020, or the Merger Agreement,
among Brooklyn Inc., BIT Merger Sub, Inc. and Brooklyn LLC.

On or about March 12, 2021, Douglas Carlson, a purported
stockholder of NTN Buzztime, Inc., filed a verified class action
complaint against NTN and its then current members of the board of
directors, for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties and
violating Section 211(c) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.


In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to hold an
annual stockholder meeting.  Plaintiff also moved for summary
judgment at the same time that he filed his complaint.  

In order to moot the claim addressed in the complaint, the Company
has agreed to hold its annual meeting on June 29, 2021.  

On or about May 6, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation,
which was "so ordered" by the Court, extending defendants time to
respond to the complaint and file their answering brief in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before
July 16, 2021 and Plaintiff's reply brief in support of his motion
for summary judgment is due on or before August 20, 2021.

Brooklyn Immunotherapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-tech company.
The Company focuses on exploring the role that the human immune
system can have in treating patients with cancer and immunologic
diseases, both as a single agent and in combination with other
therapies. The company is based in Brooklyn, New York.


BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Class Suit Fully Repaid
-------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that settlement in the class action suit
filed against Bumble Trading Inc. was fully repaid during the three
months ended March 31, 2021.

On November 13, 2018 a class action lawsuit was filed against
Bumble Trading Inc. in the Northern District of California.

There are two elements to the lawsuit: New York Dating Services Law
and California Auto-Renewal Law. The parties held a mediation on
April 2, 2020 ultimately resulting in the plaintiffs and Bumble
accepting the mediator's settlement proposal.

The settlement received preliminary approval by the court on July
15, 2020 and final approval was granted on December 18, 2020.

The settlement became fully effective as of January 18, 2021 and
was fully repaid during the three months ended March 31, 2021.

Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an
online dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas.


BUMBLE INC: Settlement in Gender Bias Suit Awaits Preliminary OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the settlement in the class action suit
related to alleged men discrimination, awaits preliminary approval
of the court.

On May 29, 2018, a plaintiff filed a class action complaint against
Bumble Trading Inc. alleging that Bumble's "women message first"
feature discriminates against men and is therefore unlawful under
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Cal. Bus & Prof. Code
Section 17200.

The parties held a mediation on June 23, 2020 and signed a
settlement agreement on November 20, 2020, subject to preliminary
approval by the court.

The Company recorded an accrual for the loss contingency in
relation to this litigation.

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

Bumble Inc. develops application software. The Company offers an
online dating application that enables users to meet new people for
dating, friendship, and relationship. Bumble serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Austin, Texas.


CALIFORNIA FISH GRILL: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Fish Grill
Investments, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Sarmiento, The
General Public, and all others similarly situated v. California
Fish Grill Investments, LLC, Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2021-00300994-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort for Other Employment -
Civil Unlimited".

California Fish Grill -- https://www.cafishgrill.com/ -- is a
fast-casual seafood kitchen dedicated to liberating the love of
seafood while respecting our oceans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          WESTRUP KLICK LLP
          Phone: 866-782-4863
          Web: http://www.westrupklick.com


CANOO INC: Faces Stockholders Putative Class Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canoo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company is facing putative class
action suits in California.

On April 2, 2021 and April 9, 2021, the Company was named as a
defendant in putative class action complaints filed in California
on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the
Company’s stock during a specified period.

Through the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking, among things,
compensatory damages.

Canoo said, "However, the final determinations of liability will
only be made following comprehensive investigations and litigation
processes."

Canoo Inc. (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp.
IV) is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices in 19951 Mariner Avenue, Torrance, California. The Company
was formed for the purpose of effecting a business combination with
specific focus on businesses in the industrial, technology and
infrastructure sectors.

CAPITAL ONE: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Smith Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ISAAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01021-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant seeking for damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began a relentless
campaign of robo calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone in December
2020 in an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt owed to
Respondent. The Plaintiff had revoked any prior express consent the
Defendant may have believed it had to robo-dial him.

The Plaintiff claims that he had suffered an invasion of a legally
protected interest in privacy due to the Defendant's unsolicited
prerecorded calls. Moreover, the invasion caused concrete harm to
the Plaintiff in the form of harassment and intrusion similar to
trespassing, the suit says.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. provides financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swighart, Esq.
          Juliana G. Blaha, Esq.
          SWIGHART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwighartLawGroup.com
                  Juliana@SwighartLawGroup.com

                - and –

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 222-7429
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


CENTERSTATE BANK: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert. Deadlines OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRECISION ROOFING OF N.
FLORIDA INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CENTERSTATE BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-BJD-JRK (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge James R. Klindt entered an order that:

   -- The joint motion to modify class certification-related
      deadlines, filed may 17, 2021, is granted.

   -- The Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 20, 2021 to

      serve its expert reports for class certification.

   -- The Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 20, 2021
to
      file a motion for class certification.

   -- The Defendant shall have up to and including August 23, 2021

      to serve its expert reports for class certification.

   -- The date the parties requested falls on a day the Court is
      closed.

   -- All other terms and deadlines set forth in the Amended Case
      Management and Scheduling Order, entered  February 11, 2021,
      shall remain intact.

CenterState Bank offers personal, small business & corporate
banking services in Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fwK46l at no extra charge.[CC]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY-CATHERINE BOUMAIZ, et
al., v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-06997-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Josephine L. Staton
entered an order denying Boumaiz's motion for class certification
of:

   "All Charter Store Associates (CSAs) (and/or nonexempt Charter
   Sales Representatives) who worked for Charter during the Class
   Period within the state of California."

Charter is a broadband communications services company providing
video, internet, and voice services to approximately 27.2 million
residential and business customers in the United States.

Boumaiz worked for Charter as a Charter Store Associate (CSA).
Charter's Opposition represents, and Boumaiz does not dispute, that
she was terminated from her position in August 2017. Boumaiz, and
other CSAs, were or are classified as nonexempt and paid a base
hourly rate that is supplemented by commission payments.

On May 22, 2019, Boumaiz filed this putative class action in Orange
County Superior Court, alleging failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay wages at the agreed rate; failure to pay overtime
compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; unlawful deduction of wages; failure to pay timely
wages upon termination of employment; failure to pay accurate
itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Charter Spectrum.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLLorIat no extra charge.[CC]


CHESTER, PA: Class Settlement in Pitney Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENARD PITNEY v. CITY OF
CHESTER, Case No. 19-799 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
      settlement and motion to certify class are granted;

   2. The Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
      Settlement Agreement is finally approved and shall be
      consummated in accordance with its terms;

   3. The Plan of Allocation to be fair and reasonable, and directs

      that the Plan Administrator effectuate the distribution of
      the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation;

   4. The distribution of the Notice of Class Action Settlement was

      in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and

      the Court's Preliminary Approval Order;

   5. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted.
      Counsel is awarded $275,000. Class Representative Pitney is
      awarded a $25,000 incentive payment; and

   6. All claims asserted by Plaintiffs and the Class against the
      Defendant are dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the

      terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Chester is a city in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, United States
within the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SIQhmE at no extra charge.[CC]


CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final
settlement approval hearing in William Likas v. ChinaCache
International Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No.
2:2019-cv-06942, is set on August 27, 2021.

The company  and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: William Likas v. ChinaCache International
Holdings Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942 (C.D. Cal.)
(filed on August 9, 2019).

The action—purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
activities related to the the company's American Depositary Shares
(ADSs) from April 10, 2015 to May 17, 2019—alleges that certain
of the our public statements and filings contained materially false
and misleading statements or omissions in violation of U.S.
securities laws.

On October 2, 2019, the Central California District Court appointed
a group of two purported shareholders of us as the Lead Plaintiff
of the class.

On December 15, 2020, the parties reached an agreement to a
stipulation and agreement of settlement to settle this purported
class action.

On April 26, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing on August 27, 2021.


ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd., an investment holding
company, provides content and application delivery services in the
People's Republic of China. The company offers a portfolio of
services and solutions to businesses, government agencies, and
other enterprises to enhance the reliability and scalability of
their online services and applications. The Company was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of
China.


CLASSICA CRUISE: $875K Settlement in Janicijevic Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated crew members working aboard BAHAMAS
PARADISE CRUISE LINE vessels, Plaintiff v. CLASSICA CRUISE
OPERATOR, LTD. and PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR LTD., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-23223-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, and Notice Regarding Service Awards.

The Plaintiff initiated the action on Aug. 4, 2020.  On Nov. 30,
2020, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, which is the
operative pleading in the case.  The claims of Settling Plaintiff
Dragan Janicijevic, on behalf of himself and all Settlement Class
Members, and Defendants Classica Cruise Operator Ltd. and Paradise
Cruise Line Operator Ltd. ("Defendants"), have been settled
pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated
Dec. 18, 2020.  On Jan. 7, 2021, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and provisionally certified the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only.

On May 12, 2021, the Court held a duly noticed Final Approval
Hearing to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether
Judgment should be entered dismissing the Settling Plaintiff's
claims on the merits and with prejudice, including the claims of
Settlement Class Members; and (3) whether and in what amount to
award Attorneys' Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel and a Case
Contribution Award to the Settling Plaintiff.

The Settlement provides the Class with both monetary relief and
important internal changes resulting in policies directed to avoid
a reoccurrence of the wage dispute before the Court.  The approved
procedures that were incorporated into the class action settlement
include procedures and protocols so that if a similar incident such
as the Pandemic ever occurs in the future that results in an
immediate stop sail order or other circumstance resulting in an
immediate and unexpected cessation of the provision of goods and
services by the cruise line, there is a mechanism by which
shipowners, management and crew can either totally avoid a wage
dispute or effectively communicate in an attempt to resolve any
wage issue that may arise if the cruise line is prevented from
being able to sail or service passengers in the future.  The
Parties have agreed on a general uniform procedure to address the
wage issues with the direct involvement of crew members, which the
Court has been advised will be implemented in all crew contracts
when the cruise lines commences sailing again.

Judge Bloom commends the Defendants for voluntarily undertaking
policy changes.  She finds that these policies certainly have an
important value to the class that would not have been brought about
by individual actions.

The Settlement provides for a Common Fund of $875,000 to be
established for the benefit of the Class.  The Defendants represent
that the Fund will be available to be paid to Class Members 35 days
after the Court grants Final Approval, assuming no appeals are
filed.  If an appeal is filed, payment will be made thirty-five
(35) days after resolution of the appeal.  If no appeal is timely
filed, payment will be made within 35 days from the order of final
approval and entry of final judgment in thes case.

The fund amount allowed all the class members to submit timely
claims for both: (1) any and all loss of alleged two month
severance payments, and (2) any wages and tips not paid for work
performed by certain crew on the vessel during the class period
(because not all crew were asked to perform tasks).  Under the
proposed Settlement, all approved class members will receive 100%
of their lost severance payments, and will be paid for wages and
tips (even though no tips were paid by passengers during the
pandemic when the cruise line was prohibited from sailing by the
Centers for Disease Control) for all time spent performing tasks on
the vessel during the pandemic.

Judge Bloom finds this result to be outstanding, especially
considering: (1) each class member had a contract that contains a
specific Arbitration Clause, which the Court has previously
enforced, (2) the settlement was able to be reached by all counsel
-- during a pandemic -- and only after numerous mediation sessions
with nationally-renowned mediator Rodney Max, and (3) the Court
addressed concerns initially at a hearing with the Parties, which
resulted in the filing of a Third Amended Complaint that addressed
the Court's concerns.

Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted the Motion for Final Approval.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, she finally certified the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, as identified in the
Settlement Agreement, which will consist of the following: "All
seafarer-employees who were physically present on the Grand
Celebration for at least one day anytime between March 18, 2020
until August 20, 2020 and were (1) terminated such that severance
is due under their employment contracts and/or (2) were employed
and performed a designated job at Defendants' request.
Seafarer-employees will not include deck and engine employees and
independent contractors, as well as the Cruise Defendants'
corporate officers or corporate directors.  Seafarer-employees will
not include Cruise Defendants' corporate officers or corporate
directors."
Judge Bloom finally designated (i) the law firms of Lipcon,
Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm,
PLLC as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (ii)
Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic as the Settlement Class
representative.

The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including all
Exhibits attached thereto, have been entered into in good faith
and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), are fully and finally
approved as fair, reasonable, adequate as to, and in the best
interests of, Settlement Class Members.  The Juduge entered
judgment approving and adopting the Settlement and the Settlement
Agreement, fully and finally terminating all Released Claims of all
Releasing Persons in the Litigation against the Released Parties,
on the merits and with prejudice.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), Judge Bloom awarded the Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $262,500
payable by the Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.  She denied the Plaintiff's request for a service award
at this time but will retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose
of revisiting the denial of service award if the Eleventh Circuit
holds a rehearing en banc in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975
F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), and will reverse her decision, or if
another Eleventh Circuit decision overrules Johnson.  The
Defendants will not be responsible for, and will not be liable with
respect to the allocation among Class Counsel or any other person
who may assert a claim thereto, the attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the Court.

The Settling Plaintiff and the Class Counsel have represented and
warranted that there are no outstanding liens or claims against the
Litigation, and they will be solely responsible for satisfying any
liens or claims asserted against the Litigation.

The Releases do not affect the rights of Noticed Class Members who
timely and properly submitted a Request for Exclusion.  The
Settlement Agreement will be the exclusive remedy for all
Settlement Class Members with regards to the Released Claims.

In the event that the Effective Date does not occur, the Judgment
will automatically be rendered null and void and will be vacated
and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in
connection herewith will be null and void, and the Parties will be
restored to their positions as of Aug. 20, 2020.

The Settlement Class Members will promptly dismiss with prejudice
all claims, actions, or proceedings that have been brought by any
Settlement Class Member in any jurisdiction that are based on
Released Claims pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the
Judgment, and that are enjoined pursuant to the Judgment.

The claims of Settling Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the
Settlement Class, including all individual claims and class claims
presented, are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against
Defendants without fees (including attorneys' fees) or costs to any
party except as otherwise provided in the Judgment.

The Settling Parties are directed to implement and consummate the
Settlement according to its terms and provisions, as may be
modified by Orders of the Court.  Without further order of the
Court, the Settling Parties may agree to reasonably necessary
extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, as may be modified by the Preliminary
Approval Order or the Judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 54(b), Judge Bloom entered the Judgment and
expressly determined that there is no just reason for delay.
Without impacting the finality of the Judgment, the Court will
retain jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation,
consummation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement and the Judgment, including jurisdiction to enter such
further orders as may be necessary or appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/acy3mz3j from Leagle.com.


CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clover Health Investment, Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Bond
v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096
(M.D. Tenn.).

In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee: Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments,
Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover
Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D.
Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.).

The complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The
Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act.

The complaints generally relate to allegations published in an
article issued on February 4, 2021, by Hindenburg Research LLC. The
complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the
class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on
the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021 or February 4, 2021), as
well as certain other costs.

In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions
described above were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health
Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as
lead case.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff, approved a lead counsel and a
liaison counsel, and approved the parties' proposed schedule for
filing an amended complaint and the defendants' responses.

Clover Health Investment, Corp. provides insurance services. The
Company offers hospital, medical, and private insurance services.
Clover Health Investment serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY PRESERVATION: Jackson Sues Over Breach of Warranty
------------------------------------------------------------
William Jackson, Qilliam Ward, Bonnie Griffith, John Sagady, Ethel
Morris, Rickey Johnson, Jonadab Ogbulie, Gary Hayes, Tembesza
Chigovanyika, Josephine Satterfield, Lee Griffin, and Darryl
Costella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PARTNERS LLC, and DOES 1-10,
Case No. RG21099229 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 17, 2021),
is brought against the Defendant's breach of the warranty of
habitability, which included the implied warranty of habitability
that the Plaintiffs' units and common areas would be kept in a
habitable condition.

According to the complaint, the Defendants acquired the Northgate
Terrace property in 2015. All tenants at Northgate Terrace arc
elderly or disabled. All Plaintiffs have written rental agreements
with Defendant for residential tenancies. These leases have an
implied warranty of habitability and entitled Plaintiffs to quiet
enjoyment of their units. Shortly after acquiring the Subject
Property the Defendants cancelled the existing pest control
contract, and initiated service with a different provider for a
lower level of service than had previously been done.

No later than 2017, there was a cockroach infestation in the
building. From 2018 onward there was a bedbug infestation in the
building. The Defendant's responses to complaints of bedbugs and
cockroaches were untimely and ineffective. The Defendants did not
take more aggressive action despite an increasing presence of
vermin. The Defendants received actual notice of the infestation at
various times from 2017 onward, and knew that their extermination
efforts were unsuccessful. Defendants received ongoing complaints.
All the Plaintiffs have had and currently have cockroaches in their
units and the common areas of the building due to the Defendant's
conduct.

The infestation has caused serious emotional harm to the tenants as
well, causing anxiety, depression, disgust, lack of sleep, and
other harms. There have been additional impacts on tenants from the
infestation, including inability to get or keep needed in home care
providers who are unwilling to live in an infested building and
unit. The tenants have suffered fear and embarrassment over having
visitors, leading to harms to their relationships, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are all residential tenants at 550 241h Street in
Oakland, California, commonly called "Northgate Terrace"

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PARTNERS LLC is a limited liability company
operating in California that acquired Northgate in 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erik Bauman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW SERROS
          2120 University Ave. Suite 730
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: 510-500-5888
          Email: crikb@scrros-law.com


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: HEI Suit Removed to District of Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Holtzman Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Company,
CNA Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01333 was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 27,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01441-STV to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Continental Casualty Company -- https://www.cna.com/ -- underwrites
property and casualty insurance for a broad range of businesses and
professionals.[BN]

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen Lawrence, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Credence Resource
Management, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00819-MK (D. Ore., May 27,
2021).

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

Credence Resource Management, LLC -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is
a debt collection agency that was founded in Nevada in 2013, with
its current headquarters in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq.
          0324 SW Abernethy Street
          Portland, OR 97239
          Phone: (503) 717-6582
          Email: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com


CREE INC: Wedra Seeks to Extend Class Certification Briefing Sched
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Wedra v. Cree,
Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-03162-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting an extension of the current class
certification briefing schedule in this action.

The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification along with
two expert reports on February 26, 2021. On April 30, 20201,
Defendant filed its opposition to class certification including
four expert reports, authored by five different experts. On the
same day, the Defendant filed two motions to strike Plaintiff's
experts. Additionally, on April 23, 2021, the Defendant file a
motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). The current class certification briefing
schedule does not provide adequate time for Plaintiff to draft her
reply brief in support of class certification, respond to
Defendant's motions to strike Plaintiff's experts, depose
Defendant's five experts, potentially draft motions to strike those
experts, and prepare rebuttal expert reports. The Parties met and
conferred, and the Parties agreed to an extension of the present
briefing schedule.

Cree, Inc. is an American manufacturer and marketer of
semiconductors.

A copy of the the Letter motion dated May 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fnZ9Hb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          Telephone: 347-657-5533
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016

CULTURAL CARE: Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to June 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales Posada v. Cultural
Care, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-11862 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Indira Talwani entered an electronic order allowing consent motion
for extension of time to file response/reply to motion to certify
class conditionally.

Responses due by June 9, 2021, says Judge Talwani.

The nature of suit state Labor -- Other Labor Litigation involving
collection of unpaid wages.

Cultural Care was founded in 2004. The Company line of business
includes providing child care services for infants and
children.[CC]

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Denial of Plea in Abatement in Daniels Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF MARIAN BROWN, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, Appellant v. DAVID DANIELS, JODIE CAMPBELL, AND KELLIE
MCCULLAR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A CLASS OF MEDICALLY
VULNERABLE PERSONS, Appellees, Case No. 05-20-00579-CV (Tex. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fifth District in Dallas
reverses the trial court's order denying the plea in abatement
filed by the Appellant Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown and
renders judgment dismissing the claims of the Appellees for lack of
jurisdiction.

The lawsuit brought by the Appellees concerns conditions at the
Dallas County Jail during the COVID-19 pandemic.  On May 21, 2020,
the Appellees filed their original verified petition against Dallas
County Sheriff Brown in her official capacity.  They sought
injunctive relief under Texas constitutional, statutory, and common
law on behalf of themselves and a class of approximately 1,800
"medically-vulnerable" people detained in the Jail.

The Appellees' petition stated in part that unlike members of the
general public, the class members are unable to socially distance
and avoid close contact with detained individuals and DSOs
[Detention Service Officers] who are spreading COVID-19 within the
Jail, and the class members are also unable to take other steps to
protect themselves from injury and death and are utterly dependent
on the Sheriff for protection of their health and lives.  The
Sheriff's failure to provide adequate PPE [personal protective
equipment], cleaning, training, and other measures to prevent
unnecessary spread of COVID-19 makes the lack of social distancing
even more dangerous to the Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class.

The Appellees' original petition alleged the following claims: (i)
Count I: Violation of Article 1, sections 13 and 19 of the Texas
Constitution; (ii) Count II: Public Health Nuisance, and (iii)
Count III: Negligence and Gross Negligence.

The Appellees asserted that "the Sheriff's conduct violates the
rights of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class under the
Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution as well as under Texas
statutory and common law," and they sought "emergency injunctive
relief to stop the unsafe and unconstitutional conditions causing
immediate and irreparable harm and the imminent loss of human life
and serious damage to human health."  They alleged "the Sheriff's
actions and inactions violated Article I, Sections 13 and 19, of
the Texas Constitution, violate the Sheriff's mandatory obligations
under Texas statutory law, and would, unless restrained, cause
personal injury and death in contravention of Texas tort law."

The Sheriff filed a plea to the jurisdiction.  The plea, filed on
May 22, 2020, challenged the allegations in the Appellees'
petition, claiming they failed to plead sufficient facts to avoid
immunity.

The trial court heard Sheriff Brown's plea in a hearing held on May
26, 2020, but deferred ruling because technical problems prevented
receipt of some submissions.  In an email to the counsel sent two
days later, on May 28, the trial court informed the parties it was
denying the plea.

On June 1, 2020, the Appellees filed their first amended verified
petition, and two days later, on June 3, Sheriff Brown filed a
notice of interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying
her plea to the jurisdiction.  Arguing no written order had been
signed, the Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal.  On June 16,
2020, the trial court signed an order deferring a ruling on the
plea to the jurisdiction, concluding it should make the
jurisdictional determination.  On June 22, 2020, the Appellees
filed their second amended verified petition.

Meanwhile, on June 25, 2020, Sheriff Brown sought mandamus relief
in the Appellate Court, arguing the trial court's June 16 order
deferring its ruling on her plea deprived her of her right to an
accelerated, interlocutory appeal.  On July 20, 2020, the Appellate
Court conditionally granted the writ, concluding the trial court
abused its discretion in deferring its ruling on the plea and
ordering the trial court to (1) vacate its June 16 order and (2)
rule on the plea.  On July 21, the trial court signed a written
order vacating the June 16 order and denying Sheriff Brown's plea
after "having considered the Plea and the Parties' submissions and
arguments of counsel."  On July 29, 2020, the Appellate Court
denied the Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Appellees' second amended petition seeks "all appropriate
injunctive relief," including "that the Sheriff must immediately
begin and continue to enforce effective social distancing" for
class members at the Jail "by reducing crowding in pods, tanks, and
other shared spaces such that it is practicable for Class members
to remain at least 6 feet away from other persons at all times and
provide adequate staffing at the Jail."

Sheriff Brown brings the following three issues, arguing the trial
court erred in denying the Sheriff's plea to the jurisdiction: (i)
Sheriff Brown is immune from suit for her decisions and actions
arising from the operations of the Dallas County Jail and her
management of the COVID-19 crisis; (ii) Sheriff Brown is immune
from suit based on the Plaintiffs' claims that she denied their
rights under provisions of the Texas Constitution guaranteeing them
due course of law and protection from cruel and unusual punishment;
and (iii) Sheriff Brown is immune from suit based on the
Plaintiffs' claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA).

Discussion

I. Issue I

The Appellate Court holds that the TTCA provides a limited waiver
of governmental immunity if certain conditions are satisfied.
Governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject
matter jurisdiction; thus, it is properly asserted in a plea to the
jurisdiction.  Public officials sued in their official capacities,
like Sheriff Brown in the instant case, are protected by the same
governmental immunity as the governmental units they represent.
However, a narrow exception to this rule exists for ultra vires
claims; even if immunity has not been waived by the Legislature, a
claim may be brought against a governmental official if the
official engages in ultra vires conduct.  Ultra vires claims depend
on the scope of the state official's authority,' not the quality of
the official's decisions."  Thus, it is not an ultra vires act for
an official to make an erroneous decision within the authority
granted.

Merely asserting legal conclusions or labeling a defendant's
actions as 'ultra vires,' 'illegal,' or 'unconstitutional' does not
suffice to plead an ultra vires claim -- what matters is whether
the facts alleged constitute actions beyond the governmental
actor's statutory authority, properly construed.  The
jurisdictional inquiry with respect to the Appellees' purported
ultra vires claims would substantially overlap with the claims'
merits.

II. Issue Two: Claims Under the Texas Constitution

The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellees' claims under the
Texas Constitutional are facially invalid, fail as a matter of law,
and therefore do not, as pleaded, support a waiver of sovereign
immunity.  The conduct alleged does not, as a matter of law, state
a viable constitutional claim.  The Appellees do not dispute that
the Sheriff and the Jail have taken some steps to control the
spread of COVID-19 in the Jail.  Indeed, testimony incorporated
into their petition shows the Jail is providing them with no-cost
access to bar soap, paper towels, and unspecified disinfectants and
detergents.  That the Dallas County Jail's policies on screening
and protecting inmates, its procedures for testing and
quarantining, or other protective measures for managing the
COVID-19 pandemic do not conform in every respect with the CDC's
guidance or with the Appellees' preferences is not a basis for
concluding their constitutional rights have been violated.

III. Ultra Vires Claims

Turning to the Sheriff's first issue, the Appellees support their
ultra vires claims against the Sheriff by pointing to various Texas
statutory and regulatory provisions and alleging the Sheriff is
either acting contrary to mandatory statutory duties or failing to
perform ministerial acts required by statute.  The Sheriff contends
she is immune from suit for her decisions and actions arising from
the operation of the Jail and her management of the COVID-19
crisis.

The Appellate Court concludes that Sheriff Brown's alleged actions
are not ultra vires.  It finds that (i) the Appellees' pleadings
demonstrate that their claims against the Sheriff do not fall
within the narrow ultra vires exception; (ii) the Sheriff does not
act ultra vires merely by purchasing different cleaning products in
different quantities than appellees would prefer, nor is it ultra
vires if she assigns the cleaning responsibilities in the Jail
differently; (iii)  at least as far as sections 275.1 and 275.4 are
concerned, appellees do not allege the staffing levels in the Jail
fall below the regulatory threshold; (iv) the Appellees do not
specify what preventive maintenance -- apart from general cleaning
of the Jail -- should be done, or at what intervals, nor do they
allege any specific components of the Jail are in disrepair; and
(v) the Appellees also do not point to facts showing the Sheriff
misinterpreted the enabling law that creates the authority for her
to act; that she acted in conflict with the law that authorizes her
to act; that she violated state law; or that she otherwise acted
without lawful authority.

IV. Texas Tort Claims Act

In her third issue, the Sheriff argues she is also immune from suit
for the Appellees' claims under the TTCA.

The Appellate Court concludes the TTCA does not waive Sheriff
Brown's immunity for the Appellees' tort claims.  First, because
the Apppellees seek only injunctive relief in the suit, the limited
waiver of immunity in the TTCA does not apply, and their tort
claims must be dismissed.  Second, the Appellees attempt to hold
Sheriff Brown liable for claims that are based on either the
Sheriff's failure to perform acts that are not required by law
and/or actions she has taken under discretionary authority.
Consequently, section 101.056 of the TTCA bars their claims.

V. Appellees' Opportunity to Amend Their Pleadings

Because the Appellate Court is sustaining the Sheriff's issues on
appeal, it must decide whether remand, as requested by the
Appellees, or rendition of a judgment dismissing the claims, as
requested by the Sheriff, is the appropriate remedy.  The Appellees
argue they should be given an opportunity to amend their pleadings
to address any remaining immunity issues.

The Appellate Court opines that the pleadings affirmatively negate
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.  And, practically
speaking, the Appellees have already had two opportunities to
replead, to no avail.  They twice amended their petition after the
hearing on the Sheriff's plea to the jurisdiction.  The Appellees
have, therefore, already had opportunities to amend their pleadings
to cure the jurisdictional defects raised in the Sheriff's plea.
Given the insurmountable jurisdictional defects asserted by the
Sheriff, the Appellees do not need, and they are not entitled to,
another opportunity to re-plead.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court concludes that the Appellees' pleadings
affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction.  It sustains
the Sheriff's issues, reverses the trial court's denial of the plea
to the jurisdiction, and renders judgment dismissing the Appellees'
claims against the Sheriff for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Appellant recovers her costs of the appeal from the
Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/afvn8a5e from Leagle.com.


DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Faces Rosencrants Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Danimer Scientific said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 17, 2021, that the
company faces a class action suit initiated by Darryl Keith
Rosencrants.

On May 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
Darryl Keith Rosencrants, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against Danimer Scientific, Inc., Stephen E.
Croskrey, John A. Dowdy, III, John P. Amboian, Richard J. Hendrix,
Christy Basco, Philip Gregory Calhoun, Gregory Hunt, Isao Noda, and
Stuart W. Pratt.

The alleged class consists of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities
between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 2021 (the "Class Period").


Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint is premised upon various allegations that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, among other things, Danimer's
business, operations, and compliance policies.

Plaintiff seeks the following remedies: (i) determining that the
lawsuit may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying Plaintiff as the
class representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages
allegedly sustained by Plaintiff and the class by reason of the
aforesaid acts alleged in the complaint, and (iv) awarding
Plaintiff and the other members of the class pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

The complaint repeats certain allegations, which are already in the
public domain.  

Defendants deny the allegations contained in the complaint, believe
this lawsuit is without any merit and intend to defend it
vigorously.

Danimer Scientific, formerly known as Meredian Holdings Group Inc.
and MHG, is a biopolymer manufacturer headquartered in Bainbridge,
Georgia.


DEDICATED NURSING: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Fortin Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA FORTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DEDICATED NURSING ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02836-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 27, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid and
non-exempt healthcare employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully deducted a
daily meal break from her and other similarly situated healthcare
employees' hours worked regardless of whether they received an
uninterrupted meal break. As a result, they were not fully and
lawfully compensated for all of their compensable hours worked,
including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for hours they worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the Plaintiff added.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid compensation, including overtime
wages, as well as litigation costs, disbursements, and reasonable
counsel and experts' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

Dedicated Nursing Associates provides healthcare staffing solutions
for various healthcare providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Tel: (614) 949-1181
          Fax: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

DENNY'S INC: Wintjen Suit Seeks to Certify Pennsylvania Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULI WINTJEN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. DENNY's, INC., et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00069-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      and seeking certification of the "Pennsylvania Class" defined

      as:

      "All Tipped Employees who worked for Defendant in the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania between at any point between
      January 22, 2016 and August 1, 2019, and were hired prior to

      January 1, 2019;"

   2. appointing Juli Wintjen as class representative;

   3. appointing Carlson Lynch, LLP and Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP

      as Class Counsel; and

   4. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the form
      of the notice.

Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.
It operates over 1,700 restaurants in the United States, Canada,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, The Dominican Republic, Guatemala,
Japan, Honduras, New Zealand, Qatar, Philippines, Indonesia, United
Arab Emirates, Curaçao, and the United Kingdom.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tr75z7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff Juli Wintjen, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, are:

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

DENTAL EQUITIES: Court Reopens Scoma Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A.
v. Dental Equities, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00041 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered an order
directing the Clerk to re-open the case because the Defendant has
filed its response to Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class
certification.

The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory actions
involving testrictions on use of telephone equipment.[CC]


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Reply on Class Cert. Bid by June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HINTON v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01295 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge John D
Bates entered an order that:

   1. Upon consideration of the parties' proposed briefing
      schedule, and the entire record , it is hereby ordered that
      the telephone conference scheduled for May 18 is canceled.

   2. The defendant's deadline for answering or otherwise
      responding to plaintiff's complaint is stayed until further
      order of this Court; and

   3. The following schedule shall govern further briefing on
      plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and plaintiff's

      motion for class certification:

      -- The plaintiff shall file a supplement to her motion for
         preliminary injunction by not later than June 1, 2021;

      -- The defendant shall file its responses to plaintiff's
         motions for preliminary injunction and class certification

         by not later than June 15, 2021; and

      -- The plaintiff shall file her replies thereto by not later

         than June 22, 2021.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.

Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac
River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC]

DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Jarrod Johnson v. 3M
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003.

A lawsuit in Georgia was originally filed on November 26, 2019 and
is presented as a class action lawsuit by and on behalf of a class
of persons who obtain drinking water from the City of Rome, Georgia
and the Floyd County Water Department (and similarly situated
persons) (generally, for these purposes, residents of Floyd County)
(styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No.
19-CV-02448-JFL-003).

On January 10, 2020, the Class Action Lawsuit was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Rome Division (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al Civil
Action No. 4:20-CV-0008-AT).

The plaintiffs in this case allege their damages include without
limitation the surcharges incurred for the costs of partially
filtering the chemicals from their drinking water.

The Complaint requests a jury trial and asserts damages unspecified
in amount, in addition to requests for injunctive relief.

The Company has filed a response to the Complaint, intends to
defend the matter vigorously, and is unable to estimate its
potential exposure, if any, at this time.

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

The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor
covering products for residential and commercial applications
primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and
is based in Dalton, Georgia.


DNH/ML EMPOWER: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Wellington, v.
DNH/ML Empower Federal Credit Union, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-01367-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a uniform
pretrial scheduling order as follows:

   -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before
      November 30, 2021.

   -- Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before
      September 8, 2021 and Dispositive Motions are to be filed on

      or before December 14, 2021.

   -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action
shall
      be made on or before July 2, 2021.

   -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be
made
      on or before July 2, 2021.

   -- The parties are directed to file a status report on or
before
      August 2, 2021

Empower FCU is a full-service financial institution that provides
savings, loan, and transaction services to members in Central New
York, and eight counties in New York State. Headquarters are
located in Central New York. As a credit union, Empower is a
financial cooperative and is not-for-profit.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWDWmN at no extra charge.[CC]

DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw, et al., v. Schulte,
Case No. 6:19-cv-01343 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil
entered an order sustaining unopposed request to continue hearing
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Vratil said, "Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion For Class
Certification previously set for May 13, 2021 at 10:00 AM was
cancelled as stated in a previous notice. New hearing date will be
set a later date if deemed appropriate."

The nature of suit states civil rights.[CC]

EASTMAN KODAK: Bid to Dismiss Garfield Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by Robert Garfield, is pending.

On August 13, 2020 Tiandong Tang commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company, its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in Federal District Court
in the District of New Jersey, and on August 26, 2020 Jimmie A.
McAdams and Judy P. McAdams commenced a class action lawsuit
against the Company and its Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New
York.

The Securities Class Actions seek damages and other relief based on
alleged violations of federal securities laws in the context of the
DFC Announcement of the potential DFC Loan and DFC Pharmaceutical
Project.

Since the filing of the Securities Class Actions, procedural
activities have been ongoing relating to the determination of venue
and lead plaintiff.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
Securities Class Actions.  

In addition to the Securities Class Actions, on December 29, 2020
Robert Garfield commenced a class action lawsuit against the
Company and each of the members of its Board of Directors in the
Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey seeking equitable
relief and damages in favor of the Company based on alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Companys Board of Directors
associated with alleged false and misleading proxy statement
disclosure (the "Fiduciary Class Action").  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Fiduciary Class Action on
April 13, 2021.  

The Company has also received three requests under New Jersey law
demanding, among other things, that the Company take certain
actions in response to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating
to option grants and securities transactions in the context of the
DFC Announcement and alleged proxy statement disclosure
deficiencies.  The Company has responded to and engaged in
discussions concerning these requests, and its response and
discussions may serve as the basis for the requestors to bring
shareholder derivative lawsuits.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend the Fiduciary Matters.  

Eastman Kodak Company is a global technology company focused on
print and advanced materials and chemicals. Kodak provides
industry-leading hardware, software, consumables and services
primarily to customers in commercial print, packaging, publishing,
manufacturing and entertainment. Kodak is committed to
environmental stewardship and ongoing leadership in developing
sustainable solutions.


EBIX INC: Teifke Putative Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Christine Marie Teifke.

On February 22, 2021, Christine Marie Teifke, a purported purchaser
of Ebix, Inc. securities, filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of herself and others who purchased or acquired Ebix
securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.

The complaint asserts claims against Ebix, Inc., Robin Raina, and
Steven M. Hamil, for purported violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Ebix, Inc. made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about an audit of the company's gift card business in
India and its internal controls over the gift and prepaid card
revenue transaction cycle.

The complaint also asserts a claim against Robin Raina and Steven
M. Hamil for purported violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act arising out of the same facts.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance,
finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was
formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to
Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia.


EDUCATION & ENTERTAINMENT: Warner TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Warner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Education & Entertainment, Inc.
doing business as: Nipsey's Restaurant, Case No. 21-008475-CA-01
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of
Florida on May 27, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21988-CMA to the
proceeding.

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

Nipsey's Restaurant -- https://www.nipseys.com/ -- aims to create a
community-focused restaurant, world-renowned for its best in class
dining and customer-centric experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 tom@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kishasha Bruce Sharp, Esq.
          K.B. SHARP
          99 NW 183 Street, Suite 240
          Miami, FL 33169
          Phone: (305) 493-0644
          Fax: 493-0646
          Email: kbsharp@bellsouth.net


EL TORO LOCO: Ceja Files Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Toro Loco Market,
et al. The case is styled as Jose Ceja, on behalf of others members
of the general public similarly situated v. El Toro Loco Market,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Toro Loco Lina LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; Express Wholesale, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; Case No. BCV-21-101202 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 27, 2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

El Toro Loco Market is a Mexican grocery store in Yuba City,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin E. A. Pike, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Phone: 310-712-8010
          Fax: Not Available
          Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com


ENTERPRISE LEASING: Benson Bid to Certify Class Partially Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELVA BENSON v. ENTERPRISE
LEASING COMPANY OF ORLANDO, LLC; and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00891-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B.
Dalton entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

   a. The following class is certified for the WARN Act claim
      against Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.:

      "All Enterprise employees who worked at or reported to
      Enterprise facilities in the United States and were
      terminated without cause on or about April 24, 2020, or
      within 14 days of April 24, 2020, or in anticipation of, or
      as the foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoff or plant
      closing ordered on or about April 24, 2020, and who are
      affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
      2101(a)(5), who do not file a timely request to opt-out of
      the class, and who also did not sign a severance agreement
      with Enterprise.

   b. The Court appoints the Plaintiff Elva Benson as Lead
      Plaintiff and Class Representative.

   c. The Court appoints Brandon J. Hill, Esq. and Luis A. Cabassa,

      Esq. of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as co-lead Class
Counsel.

   d. In all other respects, the Motion is denied.

The Court said, "Benson argues a class action is a superior method
of resolving the WARN Act claim because small individual payouts
make individual suits impracticable. The Defendants argue a class
action is inferior, as there would be no way to try the case
without splintering off into mini-trials. As discussed, the
individual questions are small and manageable, so there is no need
for "mini-trials." As the potential individual economic payout is
small (less than $6,000, on average) and there is no indication any
other plaintiff has begun an individual action against any
Enterprise organization on these WARN Act claims, Benson has shown
a class action is the superior method of adjudicating these
claims."

Enterprise Leasing provides transportation solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SqxdcR at no extra charge.[CC]

EPIC LANDSCAPE: Ordered to Produce Albelo Class Records by June 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO, o/b/o himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC LANDSCAPE
PRODUCTIONS, L.C, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-0454-DGK (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Western Division, ordered the Defendant to the
electronic pay records for the putative Rule 23 class members by
June 3, 2021.

The case is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The Second Amended Complaint adds Rule 23 class action
claims for various state law causes of action, including breach of
contract.

On May 23, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a collective
class of current and former landscape laborers who worked for the
Defendant.  A motion to certify a Rule 23 class is currently
pending, as is a motion to de-certify the collective class, and
cross-motions for summary judgment.

Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
The Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its May 6 Order
directing it to provide electronic pay records for putative Rule 23
class members.  In short, the Defendant argues the order was
incorrect and will lead to an overly broad document production.

On May 4, 2021, the parties contacted the Court's courtroom deputy
to schedule a discovery dispute teleconference concerning how the
Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Order, should be interpreted.  A law clerk
emailed the parties back, writing, "Before Judge Kays schedules
anything, he would like to know more about the dispute. Could the
parties email me back with a summary of the dispute?

The Plaintiff's counsel replied first outlining the dispute and
summarizing his position.  Shortly afterward, the defense counsel
sent the email about the dispute that concerns an interpretation of
Doc. 181, an Order addressing Epic's objections to the Plaintiffs'
Third Request for Production.

The parties' description of the dispute and the explanation of
their positions was equivalent to the one page summary from each
party the Court typically reviews prior to ruling on a discovery
dispute pursuant to Local Rule 37.1.  After reviewing the emails,
and in light of the rapidly approaching trial date, the Court
determined -- as it often does -- that it did not need to hold a
formal teleconference with the parties to resolve this discovery
dispute.

The Court issued a short order which in relevant part stated: "The
Court's prior order is admittedly ambiguous.  While the Defendant's
reading of the December 8 order is not unreasonable, given the
rapidly approaching July trial date, the likelihood the Court will
certify a Rule 23 class, and the Plaintiffs' counsel's need for
this information to calculate damages for the putative class, the
prior order should be interpreted to mean the Defendant will
provide electronic pay records for all putative Rule 23 class
members as well.  The Defendant will produce these records by May
27, 2021, unless the Plaintiffs agree in writing to their
production at some later time."

On May 14, the Defendant filed the pending eight-page motion for
reconsideration which expands upon the arguments made in the May 4
email, but does not provide any new facts or law.

After carefully reviewing the pending motion and re-reading the
December 8 Order, the parties' May 4 emails, and the Court's May 6
Order, Judge Kays sees no error in the May 6 Order that merits
reconsideration.  Accordingly, he denied the motion for
reconsideration.  The Defendant will produce the records by June 3,
2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hd39cm38 from Leagle.com.


EVMO INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo,
Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al, 20-cv-8591 (SVW), is stayed.

These two copy-cat actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and
September18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, both cases as
purported class actions.  

Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin  and William Koch each claim to have
purchased the Company's stock "traceable to the initial public
offering (IPO)" and like plaintiffs Vanbecelaere and Rung in the
state court actions, purport to bring a securities class action
pursuant to Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933  on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's stock.  

The first amended complaint alleges false statements and material
omissions of material fact in connection with the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
November 14, 201 9 IPO.  

The defendants include directors of the company and the
Underwriters to the IPO, Westpark Capital and Aegis Capital Corp.


The federal court has consolidated the two matters for all
purposes, and an initial status conference has been scheduled and
held. As with the Vanbecelaere state court case, the Company denies
liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed
all materially adverse facts, events and occurrences in its
Registration Statement and related public filings, and the
complaint's alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 are baseless.   

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit in federal
court.  

EVmo said, "All the securities lawsuits, in both federal and state
court, are presently stayed pending the outcome of this
mediation."

EVmo, Inc. was formed on June 21, 2016 under the name "YayYo, LLC,"
which was converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to the
unanimous written consent of the company's former manager and
members in a transaction intended to be tax-free under the Internal
Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's liabilities and assets, including
its intellectual property, were automatically transferred to the
Company and the Company has assumed ownership of such assets and
liabilities. The Company now operates as a "C" corporation formed
under the laws of the State of Delaware. On September 11, 2020,
YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare Rental, Inc. On March 1,
2021, the Company changed its name from Rideshare Rental, Inc. to
EVmo, Inc. The Company is a holding company operating through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Distinct Cars, LLC and Rideshare Car
Rentals, LLC.


EVMO INC: Rung and Vanbecelaere Suits Stayed
--------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 and Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo,
Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 are stayed.

On July 22 and July 23, 2020 two, twin actions (with virtually
identical complaints) were filed in the LA Superior Court. The
State Case complaints differed only by a few words and the random
punctuation mark.

Plaintiff Ivan Rung and Michael Vanbecelaere each claimed to have
purchased the Company's stock in the IPO ; they purported to bring
a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's November 14,
2019 initial public offering (IPO).

Lifting allegations freely from the FirstFire case complaint, the
State Case Complaint is vague about alleged misrepresentation and
material omissions, detailing instead a supposed chronology of
events leading to the Company's voluntary decision to delist its
stock from NASDAQ following some business setbacks in early 2020.

The Company announced in an 8K filed on February 10, 2020 that it
was voluntarily delisting from NASDAQ. Although YayYo obviously
admits that its stock was delisted on NASDAQ, Company has denied
liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed
all materially adverse facts and occurrences in its Registration
Statement, related public filings and other public statements, and
the Complaint's alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 are baseless.

EVmo said, "If the mediation is unsuccessful, YayYo intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit as it entirely lacks merit. The
litigation is presently stayed."

EVmo, Inc. was formed on June 21, 2016 under the name "YayYo, LLC,"
which was converted into a Delaware corporation pursuant to the
unanimous written consent of the company's former manager and
members in a transaction intended to be tax-free under the Internal
Revenue Code. All of YayYo, LLC's liabilities and assets, including
its intellectual property, were automatically transferred to the
Company and the Company has assumed ownership of such assets and
liabilities. The Company now operates as a "C" corporation formed
under the laws of the State of Delaware. On September 11, 2020,
YayYo, Inc. changed its name to Rideshare Rental, Inc. On March 1,
2021, the Company changed its name from Rideshare Rental, Inc. to
EVmo, Inc. The Company is a holding company operating through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Distinct Cars, LLC and Rideshare Car
Rentals, LLC.


EXP REALTY: Wright Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE WRIGHT, JORGE
VALDES, EDWIN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY, LLC, Case No.
6:18-cv-01851-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the class;

   2. appointing him as class representative;

   3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman
      P.A. as class counsel; and

   4. establishing a deadline for submission of a proposed class
      notice and notice plan.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a single class consisting of:

   "all persons who received prerecorded calls from eXp realtors
   made using either of the two dialers used by eXp realtors to
   make prerecorded calls to Plaintiff Diaz (a Mojo dialer or a
   Vulcan7 dialer) and for whom the lead source for the call is
   identified as either of the three lead generators used by eXp
   realtors to obtain Plaintiff Diaz's phone number, Mojo,
   Landvoice, or Vulcan7. The class is limited only to persons who

   received prerecorded calls made using the exact same dialers
   based on the exact same lead sources as the prerecorded calls by

   eXp's realtors to Plaintiff Diaz."

eXp's realtors purchased leads lists of potential property listings
and called them using prerecorded message delivering dialers that
the realtors purchased from the same companies they purchased the
leads lists from. Neither eXp, eXp's realtors, nor the companies
that sold the leads lists had consent of any kind from any of the
consumers in the leads lists. This is because the companies eXp's
realtors purchased the leads lists from generated the leads by
matching property addresses (which were associated either with
expired listings on the MLS, for sale by owner properties, or
properties within a certain radius of other active listings) with
the names of the properties' owners and their phone numbers from
public records and data organizations, like LexisNexis.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUElGo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class, are:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26 th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

FAST AC: Court Junks Walters Class Suit without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY WALTERS v. FAST AC,
LLC and FTL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a FTL CAPITAL FINANCE, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00070-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L.
Badalamenti entered an order:

   1. granting FTL's motion for summary judgment to Count VIII of
      the second amended complaint;

   2. dismissing Count VIII for lack of standing;

   3. dismissing Counts I–VII for lack of subject-matter
      jurisdiction without prejudice to refile in state court; and

   4. directing the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and
      deadlines, enter judgment in favor of Defendants in
      conformance with this Order, and close this case.

The Court said, "Because the TILA claim has been dismissed for lack
of standing, which touches on subject-matter jurisdiction, the
Court has no discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state-law claims. Accordingly, Mr. Walters' remaining
state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to be filed in a
Florida state court, should he choose to do so."

The events leading up to this case began when a technician named
"Mike" who was employed by Defendant Fast AC, LLC told Plaintiff
Gary Walters that the ductwork in his air conditioning unit (which
Fast AC previously installed) needed to be replaced. Although Mr.
Walters was initially hesitant about the cost of the work, Mike
assured Mr. Walters that he could secure financing. Mike then
accessed a computer and e-signed several documents on Mr. Walters's
behalf -- none of which Mr. Walters had a chance to read. Due to
Mike's actions, Mr. Walters "signed" a credit agreement with FTL
Capital Partners LLC, which contained disclosures consistent with
an open-end transaction under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

FTL provides financing products to contractors who install heating
and cooling equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yF3u0B at no extra charge.[CC]

FISHER INVESTMENTS: Bryant Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BRYANT v. FISHER
INVESTMENTS INC, Case No. 3:21-cv-05262-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge e James L. Robart entered scheduling order regarding class
certification motion:


      Deadline to complete discovery on        September 6, 2021
      class certification (not to be
      construed as a bifurcation of
      discovery):

      Deadline for Plaintiffs to file          October 6, 2021
      motion for class certification
      (noted on the fourth Friday after
      filing and service of the motion
      pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash.
      LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree
      to different times for filing the
      response and reply memoranda):

The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall inform the
court immediately should Plaintiff(s) at any time decide not to
seek class certification.

The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be
changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the
parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause
shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed
will not ordinarily constitute good cause. As required by LCR
37(a), all discovery matters are to be resolved by agreement if
possible. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,
the Court "direct[s] that before moving for an order relating to
discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court" by
notifying Ashleigh Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520.

Fisher Investments is an independent money management firm
headquartered in Camas, Washington.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0GKng at no extra charge.[CC]


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Must File Bid for Class Cert. by Sept. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIA DUBOSE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR
BANCORP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03841-SCJ-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Walter E. Johnson entered an order that phase one discovery
shall close on August 23, 2021.

Judge Johnson says that the Plaintiff will file her motion for
class certification by September 22, 2021, the Defendant will have
30 days to respond, and any reply shall be due 14 days later.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vsIhVs at no extra charge.[CC]


FLIRT NY: Bid to Dismiss Nikonov Disability Bias Claim Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denys Nikonov, v. Flirt
NY, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07128-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action for disability
discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).

The parties shall appear for a remote final pretrial conference on
May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. At the scheduled time, the parties shall
each separately call (888) 278-0296 (or (214) 765-0479) and enter
access code 6489745, says the Court.

The Court said, the Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Eighth and
Ninth Causes of Action under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL for
discrimination on the basis of disability (migraines and swollen
feet) are barred by Plaintiff's having sought workers' compensation
benefits for workplace-related injuries (to his feet, back and
ankles). However, while one who receives workers' compensation
benefits for accidental workplace-related injuries may not seek
other recovery from his employer for such injuries, there is no bar
to his seeking recovery for intentional wrongs, such as
discrimination. See, e.g., Searight v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc.,
No. 02-CV-00604 (SJF) (AKT), 2006 WL 8441332, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. July
5, 2006) ("[I]t is well-established that the workers' compensation
exclusivity doctrine does not preclude discrimination claims under
the NYHRL.").

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 17, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fU07Kr at no
extra charge.[CC]

FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortress Biotech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a purported securities class action suit entitled,
Cushman v. Fortress Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05767.

In November 2020, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, putatively on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Fortress securities between December 11, 2019
and October 9, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly
damaged in connection therewith.  

The case is captioned Cushman v. Fortress Biotech, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05767, and names as defendants the Company and two
of the company's officers.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose various facts and circumstances with respect to a New Drug
Application filed by Avenue Therapeutics, Inc., the company's
partner company, regarding IV Tramadol, Avenue's lead product
candidate.  

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages as
well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

The action is in the early stages of litigation, and the Company
intends to vigorously contest the claims.

Fortress Biotech, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
acquiring, developing and commercializing pharmaceutical and
biotechnology products and product candidates, which the company do
at the Fortress level, at the company's majority-owned and
majority-controlled subsidiaries and joint ventures, and at
entities the company founded and in which it maintains significant
minority ownership positions. The company is based in New York, New
York.


FPI MANAGEMENT: Archibeque Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FPI Management, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Archibeque on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. FPI Management, Inc., Case No.
34-2021-00300923-CU-MT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Mass Tort Civil - Unlimited."

FPI Management -- https://fpimgt.com/ -- is a privately owned,
third party, multifamily property management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          Phone: (415) 358-6913
          Email: mram@forthepeople.com


GEETA BROWN: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE CASTILLO et.
al., v. GEETA B. BROWN Case No. 2:20-cv-00243 (D. Maine), the Hon.
Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

   -- Deadline for the parties to respond to discovery requests is
      extended to June 30, 2021;

   -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to depose fact witnesses is
      extended to August 9, 2021;

   -- Deadline for the Defendant to depose five class members is
      extended to August 27, 2021;

   -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to designate expert witnesses is

      extended to August 27, 2021;

   -- Deadline for Defendant to complete depositions of Plaintiffs'

      expert witnesses is extended to September 20, 2021;

   -- Deadline for Defendant to designate expert witnesses is
      extended to October 4, 2021;

   -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to complete depositions of
      Defendant's expert witnesses is extended to October 28,
2021;

   -- Deadline to file motion for class certification is extended
      to November 22, 2021;

   -- Deadline to file response to motion for class certification
      is extended to December 20, 2021;

   -- Deadline to file reply memorandum in support of motion for
      class certification is extended to January 3, 2022.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Clifford, Esq.
          Clifford & Clifford, LLC
          Post Road Center 62 Portland Rd., Suite 37
          Kennebunk, ME 04043
          Telephone: (207) 985-3200
          E-mail: james@cliffordclifford.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James B. Haddow, Esq.
          PETRUCCELLI MARTIN & HADDOW LLP
          Two Monument Sq. Suite 900
          P.O. Box 17555
          Portland ME 04112-8555
          Telephone: (207) 775-0200
          E-mail: jhaddow@pmhlegal.com

GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Has Until July 30 to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCOY v. GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05597 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R.
Martinotti entered an order that the Plaintiff's class
certification motion and disclosure of class certification expert
is to be submitted to the Defendant by July 30, 2021.

Judge Martinotti says that by September 13, 2021, GEICO shall
provide it's opposition to class certification and disclosure of
class certification experts to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff's reply in
support of class certification is to be provided to Defendant by
October 4, 2021.

All submissions are to be filed by October 4, 2021. Disclosure of
merits experts under Rule 26 is to be provided by October 18, 2021.
Disclosure of merits rebuttal experts under Rule 26 is to be
provided by November 19, 2021. All discovery is to be completed by
December 17, 2021. A telephone status conference shall be held on
September 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., the Judge adds.

The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Bossart Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH BOSSART, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-CV-11057 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Bernard
A. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action
complaint.

The case is a consumer class action filed on behalf of a
prospective class consisting of persons across the country who
"purchased or leased any 2015 to 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 or
2017 to 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by GM.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles (which are sub-models
of the Corvette line) have wheels with inferior material which is
cast, rather than forged, and is of insufficient strength, and in
an insufficient quantity, to withstand the torque and power input
from the drivetrain.  On information and belief, GM also used less
material than necessary in order to try to save un-sprung weight
(i.e., weight that is not borne by the vehicle's suspension).  As a
result, the rims are not strong enough and crack and deform under
normal driving conditions.

As a result of the Wheel Defect, wobbling conditions, out of round
conditions, and deformation of the rim flange occur which causes
vibration perceptible to the driver through the body of the vehicle
and through the steering wheel at various speeds.  Cracks in the
barrel cause a loss of air pressure and an unsafe condition and
cause the rim to lose strength and become vulnerable to failure
under loading conditions such as braking.

Although GM was sufficiently aware of the Wheel Defect from
preproduction testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to its
customer service hotline, and customer complaints made to dealers,
this knowledge and information was exclusively in the possession of
GM and its network of dealers and, therefore, unavailable to
consumers.  Despite access to aggregate internal data, the
Plaintiffs allege that GM has actively concealed the existence of
the defect, telling customers, as cited below, that the wheels are
not defective and that the cracked and deformed wheels are caused
by potholes or other driver error, without any such evidence to
support external causes.

GM sells the Class Vehicles with a 3-year, 36,000-mile
bumper-to-bumper warranty.  However, when the class members bring
their vehicles to GM's authorized dealerships requesting coverage
for the Wheel Defect, GM is systematically denying coverage.  As a
result, the Class Members are paying thousands of dollars
out-of-pocket to repair, and if they purchase the replacements from
GM, to replace the wheels with equally defective wheels.

There are 18 named plaintiffs in this case. Collectively, they are
citizens of and/or purchased their Class Vehicle in the states of
California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Texas. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide
class, consisting of "[a]ll persons and entities in the United
States who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle," as well as 13
statewide subclasses.

The proposed classes, the class representatives, and 40 claims are
as follows:

      1. Nationwide Class: Breach of written warranty pursuant to
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) (Count I); breach of implied
warranty under the MMWA (Count II); and unjust enrichment (Count
III).

      2. CLRA Subclass (Barrington, Holguin): Violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Count IV).

      3. California Subclass (Barrington, Holguin): Violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. and Pro. Code
Section 17500 et seq.) (Count V); breach of implied warranty under
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Count VI); and breach of
express warranty (Count VII).

      4. Florida Subclass (Rochford): Violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count VIII); breach of
express warranty (Count IX); and breach of implied warranty (Count
X).

      5. Illinois Subclass (Mirenda): Violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count XI);
breach of express warranty (Count XII); and breach of implied
warranty of merchantability (Count XIII).

      6. Massachusetts Subclass (Lupis): Violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Count XIV); breach of
express warranty (Count XV); and breach of implied warranty (Count
XVI).

      7. Michigan Subclass (Czajka, Kalkstein): Violation of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII); breach of express
warranty (Count XVIII); and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count XIX).

      8. New Hampshire Subclass (Goldberg, Smiths): Violation of
the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (Count XX); breach of
express warranty (Count XXI); and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count XXII).

      9. New Jersey Subclass (Chookazian): Violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count XXIII); breach of express warranty
(Count XXIV); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(Count XXV).

      10. New York Subclass (Williams): Violation of the New York
Commercial Deceptive Acts or Practices Law (Gen. Bus. Law Section
349) (Count XXVI) and the New York False Advertising Law (Gen. Bus.
Law Section 350) (Count XXVII); and breach of express warranty
(Count XXVIII).

      11. Pennsylvania Subclass (Bossart, Roth): Violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law
(Count XXIX); breach of express warranty (Count XXX); and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Count XXXI).

      12. Ohio Subclass (Galzers): Violation of the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act (Count XXXII); breach of express warranty
(Count XXXIII); and breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(Count XXXIV).

      13. South Carolina Subclass (Turner): Violation of the South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count XXXV); breach of express
warranty (Count XXXVI); and breach of implied warranty (Count
XXXVII).

      14. Texas Subclass (Barker): Violation of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (Count XXXVIII); breach of
express warranty (Count XXXVIX); and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count XL).

For relief, the Plaintiffs request (1) class certification; (2) a
declaration that the Defendant is financially responsible for
notifying all the Class Members about the defective nature of the
wheels, including the need for periodic maintenance"; (3)
compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages; (4) any and all
remedies available under the aforementioned statutes; (5) an order
for disgorgement; (6) attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest; and (7) injunctive relief.

In the instant motion, the Defendant seeks "to dismiss all claims
in the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Discussion

I. Express Warranty Claims (Counts VII, IX, XII, XV, XVIII, XXI,
XXIV, XXVIII, XXX, XXXIII, XXVI, XXXVIX)

To state a claim for breach of express warranty, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the seller made an affirmation of fact or promise
to the buyer which relates to the goods at issue, (2) the fact or
promise was part of the basis of the bargain, and (3) the express
warranty was breached.  The Defendant concedes that it did make a
promise to the Plaintiffs which formed part of the basis of their
bargain -- i.e., GM's New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW").  The
question regarding this claim is whether the Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged that the Defendant breached the NVLW.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' express warranty claim
should be dismissed because (1) "the Plaintiffs' theory is clearly
premised on an alleged design defect, not a defect due to materials
or workmanship"; (2) "the Plaintiffs plead no facts establishing
that their alleged tire and wheel issues were caused by something
other than 'normal wear' and 'road hazard damage' that the NVLWs
exclude from coverage"; (3) various Plaintiffs failed to notify
defendant of the alleged vehicle issues, failed to present their
vehicles to an authorized dealer for repairs, and/or altered their
Class Vehicles with non-GM parts or through non-GM repairs, all of
which would void GM's warranty coverage; and (4) certain Plaintiffs
failed to allege that they were within the warranty's stated
mileage and/or time limit when they sought the relevant repairs.

Judge Friedman concludes that, based on the facts alleged, the
Plaintiffs' claims should not be dismissed for failure to seek
repairs within the NVLW's time and milage limits.  While the
Defendant contends that the warranty coverage for certain Class
Vehicles was voided by wheel repairs at non-GM repair shops, the
NVLW requires more than repairs or alterations to void its
coverage.  In relevant part, the NVWL states that it "does not
cover any damage or failure resulting from modification or
alteration to the vehicle's original equipment."  Nothing in the
complaint indicates that the wheel alterations or modifications
caused the Class Vehicles' damage or failure.  Rather, the Class
Vehicles were allegedly exhibiting the wheel defects prior to
alteration.  Consequently, the alterations mentioned in the
complaint do not provide a basis for dismissing the Plaintiffs'
claims.  For these reasons, the Judge concludes that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims of breach of express warranty survive the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

II. Implied Warranty Claims (Counts VI, X, XIII, XVI, XIX, XXII,
XXV, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXVII, XL)

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiffs' implied warranty
claims should be dismissed because they do not allege a persistent
defect that renders their vehicles unmerchantable.  In addition to
this blanket argument, the Defendant contends that certain
Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims should be dismissed because
they "lack privity with GM and allege only economic damages," while
others should be dismissed "because they do not allege they
presented their vehicles for repair within the warranty period."

Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the arguments
raised in the parties' briefs, Judge Friedman concludes that the
Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims survive dismissal.  Under
Michigan law, plaintiffs are not required to allege privity to
successfully state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability."  The Plaintiffs contend that "pursuant to the
specific language in the express warranties issued by GM, both
express and implied warranties are intended to extend to all owners
and subsequent owners of the Class Vehicles."  The Defendant does
not refute this assertion.

As with the express warranty claims of these five plaintiffs, the
Judge concludes that their implied warranty claims survive the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Although questions of fact remain
as to vehicle milage or the nature of the repairs requested,
Plaintiffs Mirenda, Barker, Holguin, and Kalkstein all sufficiently
allege that they sought repairs at a GM dealer within the NVLW
coverage period.  As to Plaintiff Turner, because the wheel defect
was latent and questions of fact remain regarding the Defendant's
pre-sale knowledge of the defect, the Judge concludes that it would
be premature to dismiss Turner's implied warranty claim at this
stage in the litigation.  For these reasons, he concludes that the
Plaintiffs' implied warranty claims may proceed.

III. Unjust Enrichment (Count III)

The Defendant next contends that the Court should dismiss the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims for two reasons.  First,
unjust enrichment is not available where there is an adequate
remedy at law.  Second, Plaintiffs Czajka, Kalkstein, Chookazian,
Bossart, Roth, the Glazers, and Barker did not confer a benefit on
GM. Under the laws of their respective states -- Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Texas -- unjust enrichment requires
the Plaintiff to allege facts showing that the Plaintiff conferred
a direct benefit on the Defendant.

The Court has previously stated that as an equitable remedy, unjust
enrichment is not available where there is an adequate remedy at
law, citing In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch
Prods. Liability Litig., 664 F.Supp.2d 752, 763 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
Courts have regularly dismissed unjust enrichment claims filed
against automobile manufacturers where a valid, enforceable express
warranty covers the same subject matter as the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims.  Because GM's NVLW covers the express warranty
claims raised in the complaint, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim must be dismissed.

IV. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claims (Counts I, II)

The Defendant next contends that plaintiffs' MMWA claims should be
dismissed for two reasons.  First, it argues that because the
complaint fails to name 100 Plaintiffs, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over these claims.  Second, it asserts that because
the Plaintiffs' warranty claims fail under state law, their MMWA
claims necessarily fail too.

Given his decision not to dismiss the Plaintiffs' express and
implied warranty claims, Judge Friedman concludes that the
Plaintiffs' claims under the MMWA survive the Defendant's motion to
dismiss as well.  While the instant complaint lists only 18 named
Plaintiffs, he believes it would be premature to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' MMWA claims at this early stage in litigation, as the
Court has yet to address class certification.

V. Consumer Protection Claims (Counts IV, V, VIII, XI, XIV, XVII,
XX, XXIII, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII)

The Defendant next argues that all of the Plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims should be dismissed because they have failed to
sufficiently allege GM's knowledge of the defect prior to sale
("pre-sale" or "pre-purchase" knowledge).  It further argues that
each claim should be dismissed for reasons specific to each state
statute.  In addition to pre-sale knowledge, the Defendant argues
that plaintiffs fail to adequately allege reliance (under the
California and Pennsylvania statutes); or deceptive, misleading, or
unfair acts or omissions, as well as causation (under the Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York
statutes).

The Defendant also challenges the ability of certain Plaintiffs to
raise claims under the laws of the state in which they live or the
state in which they purchased their Class Vehicle.  These
Plaintiffs do not live in the state of purchase, and the Defendant
contends that the laws at issue either apply only to the location
of purchase or only to state citizens.  Finally, the Defendant
contends that certain Plaintiffs are barred from raising their
claims by statutes of limitations (under the CLRA and Ohio
statute), prohibitions against class claims (under the South
Carolina statute), or notice requirements (under the Texas
statute).

Given the number and nature of the consumer complaints catalogued
by the Plaintiffs, combined with the general allegations regarding
GM's testing and data gathering processes, Judge Friedman concludes
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently met their burden under Rule
9.  Although the Judge recognizes that some of the consumer
complaints were submitted after certain named Plaintiffs purchased
their Class Vehicles, the Plaintiffs have included enough
information in the complaint to survive the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.  Likewise, the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to
overcome the Defendant's statute-specific challenges.

VI. Request for Injunctive Relief

Finally, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief should be dismissed.  In the complaint, the
Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Defendant from further
deceptive distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to
Class Vehicles; compelling Defendant to issue a voluntary recall
for the Class Vehicles; compelling the Defendant to remove, repair,
and/or replace the Class Vehicles' defective wheels with suitable
alternative product(s) that do not contain the defects alleged;
enjoining Defendant from selling the Class Vehicles with the
misleading information; and/or compelling the Defendant to reform
its warranty, in a manner deemed to be appropriate by the Court, to
cover the injury alleged and to notify all the Class Members that
such warranty has been reformed.

The Defendant argues that the claim for relief should be dismissed
for two reasons.  First, the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at
law because their claimed injuries are redressable by a damages
award.  Second, the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective
injunctive relief because they have not alleged that they are
likely to be harmed by GM's alleged conduct in the future.  In
response, the Plaintiffs argue that they seek injunctive relief
under the California, Michigan, and Ohio consumer protection
statutes "as explicitly permitted by those statutes," and that they
meet the threshold for Article III standing as to the requested
relief because there is "a sufficient likelihood" that they "will
again be wronged in a similar way."

At this early stage in the litigation, Judge Friedman concludes
that the Defendant's instant challenge regarding remedies is
premature.  The Defendant is free to raise the issue of injunctive
relief if the Plaintiffs prevail on the merits.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Friedman granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss as follows: The
Defendant's motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim.  The Defendant's motion is denied as to (1) the
Plaintiffs' MMWA claims; (2) the Plaintiffs' express warranty
claims; (3) plaintiffs' implied warranty claims, (4) the
Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims, and (5) the Plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46p6khr8 from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court OK's Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Lisa
G. Wood entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file his Class
certification motion 60 days after a ruling on GM's forthcoming
motion to dismiss.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's
Renaissance Center.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uBpnKR at no extra charge.[CC]


GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order extending the time for him to file his
Class Certification Motion to 60 days after a ruling on GM's
forthcoming motion to dismiss.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's
Renaissance Center.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fMsz0E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Keen, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          2839 Paces Ferry Rd SE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 751-1162
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Ben.keen@beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
                  Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

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

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES LEE CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a Montana Corp., JAMES B. LEE, and TRACY D. LEE, husband and
wife, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation,
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, GEICO INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-00068-DWM (D. Mont.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order for a two-week extension
of time to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification until June 7, 2021.

The Defendants request the extension of time to allow them to fully
respond to all of the arguments and allegations in Plaintiffs'
motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Plaintiffs' counsel
Allan McGarvey has been contacted regarding this motion and
Plaintiffs do not oppose.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bUWKBV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Judah M. Gersh, Esq.
          Brian M. Joos, Esq.
          VISCOMI, GERSH, SIMPSON & JOOS, PLLP
          121 Wisconsin A venue
          Whitefish, MT 59937
          E-mail: gersh@bigskyattorneys.com
                  joos@bigskyattorneys.com
                  randi@bigskyattorneys.com

               - and -

          Evan F. Danno, Esq.
          DANNO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          725 South Main Street
          Kalispell, MT 59901
          E-mail: evan@dannolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Alan J. Lerner, Esq.
          LERNER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 1158
          Kalispell, MT 59903-1158
          E-mail: lerner@lernerlawmt.com

               - and -

          Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
          McGARVEY, HEBERLING, SULLIVAN & LACEY, P.C.
          345 First Ave. E.
          Kalispell, MT 59901
          E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com
                  jmariman@mcgarveylaw.com
                  dleftridge@mcgarveylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          Mac Morris, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          1915 South 19th Avenue
          Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556-1430
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
                  wmorris@crowleyfleck.com

               - and -

          Sheila Carmody, Esq.
          Courtney Henson, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One Arizona Center
          400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6268
          E-mail: scarmody@swlaw.com
                  chenson@swlaw.com

GRAND CANYON: Bid to Certify Class in Miller RICO-ACFA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTIANE MILLER, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY,
INC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00652-P (N.D.
Tex.), Judge Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiff Miller brings the case on behalf of herself and a
putative class composed of "all Grand Canyon University students
who have been enrolled in an online professional graduate degree or
certificate program that is not accredited in the state where they
are employed or, if not employed, where they reside."

Ms. Miller submits claims of fraudulent omission, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violations of the Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Arizona RICO
Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") against Defendants
Grand Canyon University, Inc. ("GCU") and Grand Canyon Education,
Inc. ("GCE").

GCU, headquartered in Arizona and incorporated in Delaware, is a
primarily online university whose students live throughout the
United States.  Like many universities, GCU also makes use of
recruiters (called "advisors") whose job it is to find candidates,
discuss GCU's programs and benefits, and encourage them to apply to
GCU.

Ms. Miller, a Texas citizen, began searching for Texas-accredited
online graduate degree programs approximately two years ago.  After
completing an online form, a GCE advisor named Nicholas Abruzesse
contacted Miller.  The two engaged in several phone calls where
Abruzesse assured Miller that "she could achieve her goal of
becoming a certified teacher if she signed up with GCU" and
"informed [her] that GCU's graduate programs were accredited in
Texas."  Miller alleges that, based on Abruzesse's assurances, she
enrolled and began taking courses with GCU.

A few months after she began taking courses, Miller alleges that
she learned Abruzesse's representations were false during a
conversation with her field experience counselor, Sara.  When
Miller told Sara that she wanted to be licensed in Texas, Sara told
her that "the GCU program that Mr. Abruzesse had enrolled her in
could not lead to a job in Texas like she had been assured."
Upset, Miller suspended her pursuit of a degree from GCU and claims
that she "would not have enrolled in GCU if she had not been misled
about the program."  The Defendants contend that she left GCU for a
reason entirely unrelated to the program -- that GCU expelled her
because she failed to disclose her criminal history as part of an
FBI background check required by her education curriculum.

Ms. Miller later filed the instant action.  She alleges a variety
of state and federal common law and statutory fraud and RICO
claims.  Miller claims that approximately 50,000 GCU students
sustained injuries sufficiently similar to hers to be included in
the class.

The Defendants oppose class certification on numerous grounds,
arguing that Miller's proposed class does not satisfy the
prerequisites under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3); that the
class is unascertainable; and that Miller sets forth a theory of
fraud that lacks any basis in fact or "logical coherence."

Judge Pittman opines that Miller failed to prove the requirements
under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3).  He finds, among others,
that (i) Miller's common questions are not common at all, as
providing answers to them would fail to produce any evidence for
the putative class's claims; (ii) Miller's claims and defenses are
atypical of the class members' claims and defenses; (iii) because
Miller failed to show that common questions predominate over
questions only affecting individual members, she failed to satisfy
Rule 23(b)(3); and (iv) Miller did not prove 23(b)(2)'s
requirements.

For these reasons, Judge Pittman determines that Miller failed to
carry her burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2),
(a)(3), (b)(2), and (b)(3).  Accordingly, he finds that the Motion
for Class Certification should be and is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jr6ysfw from Leagle.com.


GREENSPOON MARDER: Initial OK of Class Settlement Deal Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMMA ROCK, as Executrix
of the Estate of Isabel Shick, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Greenspoon MARDER, LLP; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03522-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class for settlement purposes;

      "All New Jersey Consumers who were sent initial letters
      and/notices, attempting to collect a debt, between April 1,
      2019 and April 1, 2020, by Greenspoon which were addressed to

      the ESTATE OF XXXXXXX and stated in part "This firm, the
debt
      collector, may continue with collection activities and
      communications in its effort to collect the debt during the
      30-day debt validation period, unless you exercise your
      validation rights described in this Letter. One potential way

      to attempt to collect the debt is by commencing a lawsuit
      against you.""

   2. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   3. directing notice to the Class; and

   4. setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a hearing under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).

      -- Relief to Plaintiff and the Settlement Class

         (a) Greenspoon will create a class settlement fund of
             $7,875.00 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class
             Administrator will distribute to those Settlement
             Class Members who do not exclude themselves, a check
             in the amount of $125.00. Checks issued to Class
             Members will be void sixty (60) days from the date of

             issuance. If any portion of the Settlement Class
             Recovery remains after the void date on the Members'
             checks, these remaining funds will be distributed as
             set forth in 10(d).

         (b) Greenspoon shall pay $1,000 to the named Plaintiff

             for her statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
             section 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i), plus an additional $500
             in recognition of her service to the Settlement Class.

             Therefore, the named Plaintiff will receive $1,500;

         (c) Greenspoon shall pay all costs associated with
             providing notice to the Settlement Class under this
             class settlement and all costs of administering the
             class settlement;

         (d) Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date,

             along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class

             Recovery, will be donated as a cy pres award to a
             charitable organization. The Parties propose that the

             cy pres award be donated to the National Consumer Law

             Center. The Parties' selection of the forgoing cy pres

             recipient is subject to the Court's approval at the
             time of the final fairness hearing.

         (e) Subject to the Court's approval, Greenspoon agrees to
             pay Class Counsel $30,000.00 as reasonable attorneys'

             fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of a
             "successful action" under 15 U.S.C. section 1692k. The

             award of fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel
             shall be in addition to, and shall not in any way
             reduce, the amounts to be provided to the Settlement
             Class Members.

This action was brought by the Plaintiff on her own behalf and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserted a claim pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) against the Defendants in connection with
collection letters Siegel sent to the Plaintiff concerning a debt
allegedly owed to Liberty Home Equity Solutions, Inc., which the
Plaintiff alleges violated 15 U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. The
Defendants deny all of these factual allegations.

A copy of the the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fSkJCZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Valvano, Esq.
          Greenspoon MARDER LLP
          Matthew Rapkowski, Associate
          590 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10022

GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Court Approves Settlement in Artiega Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, Plaintiff v. Griffin
Organics, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 6613 (AEK)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York approves the parties'
application for approval of a settlement agreement in accordance
with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.
2015).

Plaintiff Zavala Artiega commenced the action on Aug. 22, 2016,
asserting claims against Defendants Griffin Organics, Inc.,
Griffin's Landscaping Corp., Hilltop Nursery and Garden Center,
Inc., and Glen Griffin for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") based on the alleged
failure to pay overtime wages and provide proper wage and hour
notices and wage statements.

Before the Court is the parties' application for approval of a
settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks.  The settlement
terms for which the parties seek approval are embodied in a Term
Sheet, which was agreed to by the parties in connection with a
private mediation.  Most of the provisions in the Term Sheet are
not being presented to this Court for review or approval as part of
the Cheeks Application.  Indeed, nearly the entire Term Sheet
addresses a contemplated "Class Settlement," which purportedly
would serve as a resolution of a yet-to-be-filed action in New York
State court.

This unusual bifurcated approach to claims was the product of a
negotiated resolution by the parties in private mediation, and
disputes about the meaning and enforceability of that Term Sheet
have consumed considerable time and attention as part of this
matter.  But at status conferences before the Court on Dec. 11,
2020 and Jan. 5, 2021, as well as in the Cheeks Application, the
parties have made clear that the request for settlement approval is
narrow: The only issue being presented for review is the settlement
of the FLSA claim of individual Plaintiff Zavala Artiega, and the
only claims that would be fully released as part of this proposed
settlement are Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims.

The Term Sheet includes only one term, the "Individual Settlement,"
specifically devoted to the settlement of Zavala Artiega's
individual FLSA claims.  That term states: "The parties agree that
for the case under 16-cv-6613, filed in the Southern District of
New York, only the federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
The settlement for Mauricio Zavala's federal claims, inclusive of
legal fees, will be $15,000 paid by Defendants, jointly and
severally.  The parties agree that Plaintiff will have the option
of transferring the case to the magistrate judge, to which
Defendants will agree.  Payment of the Individual Settlement Amount
will be paid to the escrow of the Administrator (Arden Claims
Service) by July 1, 2017."

Only the "Individual Settlement" requires the Court's approval and
is the subject of the Cheeks Application.  Although not included in
the "Individual Settlement" provision, the parties have allocated
one-third of the total settlement payment to attorneys' fees and
costs, which is consistent with the separate "Attorneys' Fees"
provision in the Term Sheet related to the settlement of the future
state court class action.  The parties have thus proposed that
Zavala Artiega's counsel be paid $5,000 of the total $15,000 for
attorneys' fees and costs.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions in support of the proposed
settlement, factored in his understanding that the parties engaged
in an extended mediation and arbitration process through which they
agreed to resolve the case, and considered the totality of the
circumstances, Judge Krause finds that the parties' proposed
settlement of Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims is fair and reasonable.
His consideration is limited only to Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims,
and he makes no findings whatsoever regarding those aspects of the
Term Sheet that pertain to any other potential claims involving
Zavala Artiega or any other parties.

With respect to the "Individual Settlement" of Zavala Artiega's
FLSA claims, all five Wolinsky factors weigh in favor of approval.
First, the settlement agreement provides for a total settlement
payment of $15,000, with $10,000 payable to Zavala Artiega and
$5,000 payable to his counsel as attorneys' fees and costs.
According to Zavala Artiega's calculations, his best possible
recovery on his claims for overtime wages under the FLSA would be
$36,109.  Second, the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
significant additional expenses and burdens associated with
establishing their claims and defenses.

Third, the parties would have faced significant litigation risks if
the case had proceeded to trial.  Fourth, given the mediation
process in which the parties engaged, with each side represented by
competent wage and hour counsel, there is no question that the
proposed settlement, as set forth in the Term Sheet, is the product
of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.  Fifth, the
Judge has no reason to believe that the proposed settlement is the
product of fraud or collusion.

Under the particular circumstances of the case, Judge Krause holds
that there is no question that in matters immediately before him
alone, the Plaintiff's counsel has expended time and effort that
would lead to attorneys' fees well in excess of the $5,000 in fees
that are proposed as part of this settlement, and it is clear that
the fee award represents a small fraction of the lodestar figure
that counsel would submit.  Accordingly, the fee award -- which
represents one-third of the total settlement amount -- is fair and
reasonable.

For these reasons, Judge Krause concludes the proposed settlement
to be fair and reasonable, and the individual settlement of Zavala
Artiega's FLSA claims, as set forth in the Term Sheet, is approved.
Zavala Artiega's counsel will receive $5,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs.  Zavala Artiega will receive the balance of the
settlement payment, $10,000.

The Judge directs the parties to submit a stipulation, dismissing
with prejudice Zavala Artiega's FLSA claims, on May 26, 2021, at
which point the case can be closed.

Because the action was never certified as a collective or class
action, and because Zavala Artiega settled the case individually,
the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case caption as
follows: Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, Plaintiff, -against- Griffin
Organics, Inc., et al., Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3tv7hwm from Leagle.com.


GSE SYSTEMS: $15K Remains to be Paid in Joyce Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that as of March 31, 2021,
approximately $15 thousand of the outstanding liability in the
settlement in the class action suit entitled, Joyce v. Absolute
Consulting Inc., remains to be paid.

On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc.,
filed a putative class action against Absolute and the Company,
Joyce v. Absolute Consulting Inc., case number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB,
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiff and certain other employees
were not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The
Company was subsequently dismissed from the case, leaving Absolute
as the sole defendant.

On August 17, 2020, Absolute entered into a Settlement Agreement
with the plaintiffs, with a maximum settlement amount of $1.5
million, which required Court approval.

On September 8, 2020, the Settlement Agreement between Absolute and
the plaintiffs was ratified by the Court, and the case was
dismissed, although the parties remain bound by the terms of the
settlement agreement.

Following Court approval, Absolute made an initial payment toward
the settlement amount, including legal fees, of $625 thousand.
After the passing of an opt-in notice period expired, the final
cost of settling this case, including plaintiff's attorney fees was
approximately $1.4 million.

GSE Systems said, "As of March 31, 2021, approximately $15 thousand
of the outstanding liability remains to be paid and we are
expecting this to occur as payment information is confirmed with
the plaintiff's attorneys over the next few quarters."

GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering
solutions to the power and process industries in the United States,
Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry
Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland.

HONEY BLOSSOM: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honey Blossom LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Honey Blossom LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04754 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

Honey Blossom -- https://thehoneyblossom.com/ -- is an Online
Boutique Specializing in All Natural Healthy Products for your
Everyday Healthy Lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL THRONDSON v.
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 2:19-cv-01789-MHW-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order that:

   -- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings,
      if any, must be filed no later than June 11, 2021. The
      the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal

      Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by October 1,
2021.

   -- The Plaintiff's expert report relating to the class, if any,

      must be produced by July 21, 2021.

   -- Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by August
      23, 2021. Should a class be certified, the Court will
      establish separate case deadlines for expert reports relating

      to merits issues.

   -- All class discovery shall be completed by July 14, 2021. For

      purposes of complying with this Order, the parties must
      schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all
      responses to be served prior to the deadline and must also
      file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery
      period. Should a class be certified, the Court will establish

      separate case deadlines for completion of merits discovery.

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal

      Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by October 1,
2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RIvVtU at no extra charge.[CC]

IANTHUS CAPITAL: Bid to Nix NY Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the consoldated putative class action suit, is
pending.

On April 20, 2020, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action against the Company, its former Chief Executive
Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking damages of an unspecified amount for alleged false and
misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance
of long-term debt that were held in escrow to make interest
payments in the event of a default thereof.

On May 5, 2020, another shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action against the same defendants alleging substantially
similar causes of action.

On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation,
appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were
filed. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the
various class actions complaints along with U.S. Hi-Med LLC matter
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for
the consolidated actions.

On September 4, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint. On October 14, 2020, the court
issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which
requires that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the amended complaints no later than November 20, 2020.

On November 20, 2020, the Company and its current Chief Financial
Officer filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint. On January 8, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company and its Chief
Financial Officer's reply to the opposition was filed on February
22, 2021.

The motion to dismiss remains pending before the court.

iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis
cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the
United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the U.S.
regulated cannabis industry. The company is based in New York, New
York.


IANTHUS CAPITAL: TCPA Related Class Suit vs. IEH Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related class action suit initiated
against iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC (IEH), has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On January 13, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against
iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC (IEH) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) relating to IEH's
alleged text message marketing.

On February 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal
Without Prejudice, dismissing all claims of the named, individual
plaintiff and the unnamed members of the alleged class.

iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. owns and operates licensed cannabis
cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities throughout the
United States, providing investors diversified exposure to the U.S.
regulated cannabis industry.

IDEANOMICS INC: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled
,In re Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

On June 28, 2020, a purported securities class action, captioned
Lundy v. Ideanomics et al. Inc., was filed in the United State
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain current officers and directors of the Company.


Additionally, on July 7, 2020, a purported securities class action
captioned Kim v. Ideanomics, et al, was filed in the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain current
officers and directors of the Company. Both cases alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from certain purported misstatements by the
Company beginning in March 2020 regarding its MEG division.

On November 4, 2020, the Lundy and Kim actions were consolidated
and is now titled In re Ideanomics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In December 2020, the Court appointed Rene Aghajanian as lead
plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed in February 2021,
alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from certain purported misstatements
by the Company beginning in March 2020 regarding its MEG division.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2021.

Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October
19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business
activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD)
services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China
(PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities
(VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed
the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New
York.


IDEANOMICS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rudani Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a settlement in
principle has been reached in Rudani v. Ideanomics, et al. Inc.,
finalizing a settlement agreement and approval of the Court, for
$5,000,000.  

On July 19, 2019, a purported class action, now captioned Rudani v.
Ideanomics, et al. Inc., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors. The
Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the
Amended Complaint alleges purported misstatements made by the
Company in 2017 and 2018.

As previously disclosed, there was a mediation scheduled for April
21 and 22, 2021 for the above-referenced filed civil actions. In
the Rudani action, the parties reached a settlement in principle,
subject to finalizing a settlement agreement and approval of the
Court, for $5,000,000.  

Ideanomics, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada on October
19, 2004. From 2010 through 2017, the Company's primary business
activities were providing premium content video on demand (VOD)
services, with primary operations in the People's Republic of China
(PRC,) through its subsidiaries and variable interest entities
(VIEs) under the brand name You-on-Demand (YOD). The Company closed
the YOD business during 2019. The company is based in New York, New
York.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Odeh Must File Class Status Bid by August 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMAD ODEH, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. IMMUNOMEDICS,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-17645-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that:

   1. The request for an extension of certain class certification-
      related deadlines is granted.

   2. The Defendants' class certification-related expert report
      shall be served by June 25, 2021.

   3. The Plaintiffs' class certification-related reply expert
      report shall be served by July 23, 2021.

   4. Depositions of all class certification-related experts shall

      be completed by August 25, 2021.

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
      certification by August 25, 2021.

   6. The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification by September 29, 2021.

   7. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class
      certification by October 20, 2021.

Immunomedics develops, manufactures, and sells diagnostic imaging
and therapeutic products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bYvgv3 at no extra charge.[CC]

INFINITY INSURANCE: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephanie Lopez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Infinity Insurance Company, an
Indiana Corporation, Kemper Corporation, a Delaware Corporation,
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13824 was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 27, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04441 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Infinity Insurance -- https://www.infinityauto.com/ -- is a
national insurance provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krystal Santiago, et al.
v. Information Resources Inc. (IRI) and Jeff Neuman, Case No.
1:20-cv-07688-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order extending the time and modifying the briefing schedule set
for Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

                 Deadline           Original Date      New Date

     Defendants' Opposition to      May 24, 2021      June 1, 2021
     Plaintiffs' Motion

     Plaintiffs' Reply Papers       June 7, 2021      June 15,
2021

The Defendants say that their counsel need additional time to
confer with their clients about Plaintiffs’ allegations and
evidence and collect relevant data and documents, which has been
delayed due to recent family medical issues. The Plaintiffs take no
position on Defendants' extension request. Granting these
extensions will not impact any other deadlines in the case, the
Defendants add.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SHdXI1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 972-3213
          E-mail: jacksonlewis.com

INNOVATIVE GARDENING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovative Gardening
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Innovative
Gardening Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03000 (E.D.N.Y., May
27, 2021).

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

Innovative Gardening Solutions, which also operates under the name
Gardener's Supply -- https://www.gardeners.com/ -- is America's
number one resource for gardening.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Wages Class Certified in Myers FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MYERS, BARBARA
STANERSON, JOHN EIVINS, LIV KELLY-SELLNAU, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, and
SHUNA TOSA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
v. IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-SMR-SBJ (S.D.
Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephanie M. Rose entered an order:

   1. certifying the following "Wages Class," represented by
      Plaintiffs Myers, Stanerson, Eivins, Kelly-Sellnau,
      Taylor, and Tosa, defined as follows:

      "All individuals who have worked for UIHC since August 19,
      2017 as members of the SEIU bargaining unit ("health care
      professional bargaining unit") or October 7, 2017 as a
      'Merit, Merit Exempt, and Non-Exempt P&S' employee ("blue
      collar workers"), respectively, who have not received their
      earned wages until more than twelve days, excluding Sundays
      and legal holidays, after the end of the period in which the

      wages were earned;"

   2. limiting the "Termination Class," represented by Plaintiff
      Kelly-Sellnau, to:

      "All individual members of the SEIU bargaining unit ("health

      care professional bargaining unit") or "Merit, Merit Exempt,

      and Non-Exempt P&S" employees ("blue collar workers") who
      have worked for UIHC since October 7, 2017 and have since
      terminated their employment who have not been paid accrued
      vacation pay, or unused accumulated sick leave not to exceed

      $2,000 where the employee retired at age 55 or older, by the

      next regular payday after their employment was terminated;"

   3. appointing Attorneys Harold L. Lichten, Benjamin J. Weber,
      and Nathan T. Willems as class counsel.

The Court said, "The last dispute between the parties regarding the
inclusion of unpaid sick leave plaintiffs is the class
representative. The class representative identified by Plaintiffs
is Kelly-Sellnau. A class representative must be a member of the
putative class and have standing to bring the claim. Similar to the
requirements of Rule 23 as to commonality and typicality, the Rule
requires that a class representative have "claims or defenses" that
are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a)(3). The class representative’s claims need not be
identical. The Plaintiff Kelly-Sellnau’s claim for untimely
payment of wages following termination of employment is "typical"
of claims for unpaid sick leave upon retirement and he is properly
a member of the Termination Class. Therefore, the Court finds that
Plaintiff Kelly-Sellnau may properly be the class representative
for the Termination Class."

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the University
of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), a medical facility operated
and managed by Defendant Iowa Board of Regents.

The Plaintiffs allege claims for untimely payment of wages
violating both state and federal law. The Amended Complaint
contains three counts: Count I alleges Defendant failed to pay
earned wages in a timely manner. Count II allege the Defendant
failed to pay accrued vacation or qualifying sick leave pay on the
next regular payday after termination of employment. And Count III
alleges Defendant failed to pay overtime premium pay on the next
regular payday. Counts I and II are brought pursuant to the IWPCL
and Count III is pursuant to the FLSA.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvt1Sc at no extra charge.[CC]


J-M MANUFACTURING: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J-M Manufacturing
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcelino Garcia, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J-M
Manufacturing Company, Inc. which will do business in California as
J-M Pipe Manufacturing Company, a California Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004926 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 27,
2021).

The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. also known as JM Eagle --
https://www.jmeagle.com/ -- is an American corporation and a
manufacturer of plastic pipe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
          1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
          Phone: 310-975-1493
          Fax: 310-675-0861
          Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


J.T. PIERCE PLUMBING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.R. Pierce Plumbing
Co., Inc. of Sacramento, et al. The case is styled as Hector
Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J.R.
Pierce Plumbing Co., Inc. of Sacramento, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00300960-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

J. R. Pierce Plumbing -- https://www.onlinejrp.com/ -- provides
project engineering, plumbing design, commercial and residential
plumbing services to the construction industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-990-8300
          Fax: 818-990-2903
          Email: kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gentry v. Kostecki, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01284 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for extension of
deadlines.

Judge Martinez says that on or before July 19, 2021, the Plaintiff
shall do one of the following:

   (1) file a renewed motion for class certification consistent
       with this Order (or a motion for an extension of time in
       which to do so) or

   (2) file a motion for default judgment on behalf of the named
       Plaintiff only.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]


JAGUAR HEALTH: Final Approval of Plant Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company awaits
final approval of settlement in Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health,
Inc., et al. suit.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar
Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Jaguar Health, Inc. was formerly known
as Jaguar Animal Health, Inc.), making claims arising under Section
14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4
declared effective by the Commission on July 6, 2017 related to the
solicitation of votes from shareholders to approve the merger and
certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.

By order dated September 20, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit
for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was entitled to amend that
complaint within 20 days from the date of dismissal. On October 10,
2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to focus on the
Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia and the
related disclosure statements in the Form S-4.

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 28, 2019. The Company answered the second amended
complaint on August 2, 2019; the answer denied the material
allegations of the second amended complaint.

Following the completion of document discovery, the parties engaged
in a mediation that resulted in an agreement in principle to settle
the litigation on a class-wide basis for $2.6 million, subject to
court approval.

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement on December 30, 2020. The court preliminarily approved
the proposed settlement, and authorized Plaintiff to provide
settlement class members with notice of the proposed settlement, in
an order dated February 2, 2021. The final settlement approval
hearing is currently scheduled for May 27, 2021.

Jaguar said, "Assuming that the court gives final approval to the
proposed settlement following the final settlement approval
hearing, the entire settlement consideration will be provided by
the Company's director and officer liability insurance carrier."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial-stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JAMES DOLAN: Hollywood Firefighters Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James L. Dolan, et
al. The case is styled as Hollywood Firefighters Pension Fund,
James R. Gould Jr. v. James L. Dolan, Brian G. Sweeney, Charles F.
Dolan, Charles P. Dolan, Frederic V. Salerno, Isiah L. Thomas III,
John L. Sykes, Joseph J. Lhota, Kristin A. Dolan, Madison Square
Garden Entertainment Corp., Marianne Dolan Webber, Martin Bandier,
Matthew C. Blank, MSG Networks, Inc., Paul J. Dolan, Quentin F.
Dolan, Ryan T. Dolan, Thomas C. Dolan, Vincent Tese, Defendants;
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., Nominal Defendant; Case
No. 2021-0468-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., May 27, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Injunctive Relief."

James Lawrence Dolan --
https://www.msgsports.com/leadership/james-l-dolan/ -- is an
American businessman who serves as executive chairman and CEO of
Madison Square Garden Sports and Madison Square Garden
Entertainment and executive chairman of MSG Networks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP-Wilmington
          500 Delaware Ave Ste 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 364-3600
          Email: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Brooks Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"
------------------------------------------------------------
THELMA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11772-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., May
26, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt that was incurred to non-party
Fingerhut Advantage specifically for personal purchases using a
Fingerhut credit account.

Purportedly, Fingerhut has sold or assigned the alleged debt to the
Defendant. Subsequently on or about January 21, 2020, the Defendant
sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff stating $758.74 Total
Due, which amount is allegedly false, deceptive, misleading, and
unfair because the accrue interest was not stated. New Jersey
judgments automatically accrue interest pursuant to various New
Jersey laws, inter alia New Jersey Court Rule 4:42-11(a), the suit
says.

Because the Plaintiff was confused as to the debt and the amount
involved here and how it implicates her alleged responsibilities
for making payment thereon, the Plaintiff expended time, money, and
effort in determining the proper course of action. The Plaintiff
has also suffered emotional harm as a result of the Defendant's
unlawful collection practices, added the suit.

Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action
seeking statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 121
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com

JENNY JN: Seeks June 18 Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hsin Huang Chang, v. Jenny
Jn Nails, Inc., Burtis Nail Inc., Jenny GJ Inc., Dae Eun Lee, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02024-AVC (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order extending 30 days from May 19, 2021 to June 18, 2021
for them to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class
filed on December 7, 2020 and Motion to Compel filed on December 7,
2020.

A copy of the Court's order the Defendants' motion dated May 19,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHdlkA
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW
          NY: 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718)762-1324
          E-mail TROYLAW@TROYPLLC.COM

The Defendants are represented by:

          William X Zou, Esq.
          BILL ZOU & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          By: William X. Zou, Esq.
          136-20 38 th Avenue, Suite 10D
          Flushing, NY 11354
                    Telephone: (718) 661-9562

JOHN WETZEL: Must File Response to Brown Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN v. WETZEL et al.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00512 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand entered an order directing the Defendants to file a
response to the motion to certify class filed by the Plaintiff.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus
Prison involving Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Baltas Class Suit w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE BALTAS, On his on
behalf and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v.
KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, et al., the Hon. Judge Allison D.
Burroughs entered an order dismissing the suit without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

All motions shall be terminated as moot and no filing fee is
assessed. Moreover, the Court does not have diversity subject
matter jurisdiction over this action if it were to treat the
lawsuit as a potential class action. Even if the Court were to
assume that each class member was entitled to $750 in damages for
purchasing a $139 computer tablet with eleven percent less storage
than advertised, the class would have to have at least 6,667
members to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy.

KCN provides automated commissary management services and
technologies.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 13, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RPGLOw at no
extra charge.[CC]

KNIGHT TRANS: LaCross Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick LaCross, Robert
Lira, and Matthew Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00990-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class of truck drivers who:

      "(1) signed 11 materially identical contracts with Knight
      during the relevant time period, (2) were 12 subject to
      uniform policies, rules and regulations, (3) were hired to
      perform the same job 13 duties; (4) were all allegedly
      uniformly misclassified as independent contractors, and (5)
      all of whom opted out of a prior settlement in Flores v.
      Knight Transportation Inc., et al., Case No.
CV-15-01817-PHX-
      SRB. The proposed class includes 183 drivers, all
      of whom are individually represented by Plaintiffs' counsel
      here;"

   2. appointing class counsel; and

   3. confirming the Plaintiffs as class representatives, thus
      avoiding the time, cost and burden of maintaining separate
      actions and/or joinders for each of the 183 similarly-
      situated and individually-represented drivers seeking to
      assert claims against Knight for its allegedly illegal labor

      and employment practices.

The Plaintiffs are former "owner-operator" truck drivers for
defendant Knight. Under Knight's business-model, the Plaintiffs and
putative class members leased trucks from Knight and were required
to follow Knight's strict policies and procedures, but were
nevertheless classified by Knight as independent contractors. This
lawsuit seeks to determine whether Knight misclassified its
California-based owner-operator drivers as independent contractors
in violation of California' labor and employment laws.

Knight Transportation "provides truckload transportation and
logistics services". The Defendant Knight Sales is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Knight, and is as the entity through which it leases
its trucks to its drivers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TmKALH
at no extra charge.[CC]

The attorney for the Plaintiffs Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira, and
Matthew Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are:

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Karen I. Gold, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgold@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          James M. Trush, Esq.
          TRUSH LAW OFFICE, APC
          2900 Bristol Street, Suite B204
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 384-6390
          Facsimile: (714) 384-6391
          E-mail: jim@trushlaw.com

               - and -

          Ellen R Serbin, Esq.
          Todd H. Harrison, Esq.
          Brennan S. Kahn, Esq.
          PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN
          MENDOZA, APC
          300 East San Antonio Drive
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (562) 426-6155
          Facsimile: (562) 490-9823
          E-mail: toddharrison@plblaw.com
                  brennankahn@plblaw.com
                  ellen@plblaw.com

KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Seeks to Certify Class of ESOP Participants
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE GAMINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KPC
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, and KPC HEALTHCARE,
INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on July 30, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following class
under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Counts I-V and VII-VIII of
the Plaintiff's Complaint:

   "All participants in the KPC Healthcare, Inc. Employee Stock
   Ownership Plan from August 28, 2015 or any time thereafter
   (unless they terminated employment without vesting in the ESOP)

   and those participants' beneficiaries."

   Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendants, (b) any fiduciary of

   the Plan; (c) the officers and directors of KPC Healthcare
   Holdings, Inc. or of any entity in which one of the individual
   Defendants has a controlling interest; (d) the immediate family

   members of any of the foregoing excluded persons, and (e) the
   legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
   excluded persons.

KPC Healthcare is a medical practice company based out of 1301 N
TUSTIN AVE, Santa Ana, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wDRjis at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Colin M. Downes
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com
                  colin@blockleviton.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Darin Ranahan, Esq.
          FEINBERG JACKSON
          WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
                  darin@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC.
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101.
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                  skokonas@donahoo.com
                  wdonahoo@donahoo.com

               - and -

          Major Khan, Esq.
          MKLLC LAW
          1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 546-5664
          E-mail: mk@mk-llc.com

LIBRARY SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal in Khaled Suit Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elizabeth Khaled v.
Library Systems and Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV 19-1478 JGB (Kkx)
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order that:

   1. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as
      potentially fair, reasonable, and adequate. However, in her
      motion for final approval.

   2. The following Settlement Class is certified for settlement
      purposes only:

      "All persons employed by Defendant in California as non-
      exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class
      Period who do not Opt-Out of the settlement."

   3. The Court appoints David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and
      Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group to serve as
      counsel on behalf of the Settlement Class for purposes of
      settlement only.

   4. The Plaintiff Elizabeth Khaled is appointed as the
      representative of the Settlement Class for purposes of
      settlement only.

   5. The Court appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement
      administrator.

   6. The Class Notice forms are approved.

   7. The Court authorizes distribution of Class Notice to the
      Settlement Class members pursuant to the Agreement.

   8. The hearing date for the Final Fairness Hearing is hereby set

      for Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of

      the United States District Court for the Central District of

      California, Eastern Division located at 3470 12th Street,
      Riverside, California 92501.

Library Systems is a private for-profit company that manages
municipal libraries on an outsourced basis. It is the largest
library outsourcing company in the United States. It runs 20
library systems in 80 locations.

On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced this action in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside against
the Defendants Library Systems & Services, LLC and Does 1 through
50. The Complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code by
failing to provide rest breaks and meal periods, and to pay
employees all wages for all hours worked at correct rates of pay.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 14, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2R0SlWR at no
extra charge.[CC]


LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Initial Certification of Settlement Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Perchlak, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Liddle & Liddle, A
Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461-JFW-AFM (C.D.
Calif.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for
      settlement purposes:

      "All natural persons with a California address to whom
      Defendant sent a letter based on the Template in connection
      with the collection of a consumer debt on or after November
      3, 2018 through November 3, 2019;"

   2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of

      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff as the named-
      representative of the class;

   4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel
      for the Class;

   5. approving the form of the proposed class notice; and

   6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the
      proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Defendant is a law firm that represents landlords in
residential evictions, including through sending three day notices
to pay rent or quit. Here, Defendant sent on such notice to
Plaintiff on August 7, 2019 (the "Three Day Notice").

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. section
1692g(a)(2) because the Three Day Notice failed to effectively
convey the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed,
and the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with the same in
writing within five days thereafter. The Plaintiff also alleges
that Defendant violated U.S.C. section 1692g(b) because the Three
Day Notice overshadowed the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692g(a), including by threatening to take legal action
against the Plaintiff within the 30-day dispute period without a
clear explanation of how such threat comported with Plaintiff's
validation rights.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yQB2sn at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 No. 492
          Scottsdale, AZ 85259
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James D. Hepworth, Esq.
          NEMECEK & COLE
          16255 Ventura Blvd, 300
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-9500
          Facsimile: (818) 501-0328
          E-mail: jhepworth@nemecek-cole.com

LIFE INSURANCE: Class Certification Sought in PFA Marketing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PFA INSURANCE MARKETING LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:18-cv-03771-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on August 24, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who enrolled as Premier Financial Alliance
      members and purchased one or more Living Life Indexed
      Universal Life Insurance policies in California or New Jersey

      between January 1, 2014, and the present."

      Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants Life
      Insurance Company of the Southwest ("LSW") and Premier
      Financial Alliance ("PFA"), their parents, affiliates,
      subsidiaries, agents, legal representatives, predecessors,
      successors, assigns, employees, any entity in which one of
      these Defendants has a controlling interest or which has a
      controlling interest in one of these Defendants, and relevant

      nonparties National Life Insurance Company, NLV Financial
      Corporation, Mehran Assadi, David Carroll, Jack Wu, Aggie Wu,

      Rex Wu, Hermie Bacus, Bill Hong, and Lan Zhang.

      Also excluded from the class are the agents, legal
      representatives, successors, assigns, and immediate family
      members of Defendants and these relevant nonparties; all
      individuals who reached the level of Provisional Field
      Director, Qualified Field Director, Senior Field Director,
      Regional Field Director, Area Field Director, National Field

      Director, Executive Field Director or Senior Executive Field

      Director at PFA; and the judicial officers to whom this
      matter is assigned and their immediate family members and
      staff;

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Girard Sharp LLP as class
counsel.

LSW offers mutual fund and life insurance solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvmZ9z
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Class Counsel are:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.coms

LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Ryan Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Lightning eMotors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Ryan v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al., has been
dismissed.

On February 8, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
of the Northern District of California, captioned Ryan v.
GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5:21-cv-00969) on behalf of a
purported class of stockholders.

The lawsuit names the Company and Dr. Avi Katz, Dr. Raluca  Dinu,
and Messrs. Andrea
Betti-Berutto, John  Mikulsky, Neil Miotto and Peter Wang, as
defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act by approving the dissemination of the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-4 relating to the business
combination with Lightning, which the complaint contends, among
other things, failed to provide critical information regarding the
financial projections of the Company.

The lawsuit also alleges that the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because they had the power to
influence and control, and did influence and control the
decision-making of the Company including the dissemination of the
Company's Registration Statement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining
the business combination or recission of the business combination.
The lawsuit also purports to seek a declaration that defendants
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and recovery of the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.

The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiff on April 21, 2021.

Lightning eMotors, Inc. is a newly organized Private-to-Public
Equity (PPE) company, also known as a blank check company or
special purpose acquisition vehicle, incorporated in the State of
Delaware and formed for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a
share exchange, share reconstruction and amalgamation with,
purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging
in any other similar business combination with one or more
businesses or entities. The company is based in Loveland,
Colorado.


LIGHTNING EMOTORS: Shingote Putative Class Suit Junked
------------------------------------------------------
Lightning eMotors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Shingote v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 650109-2021), has been dismissed.

On January 7, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, captioned Shingote v. GigCapital3, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 650109-2021) on behalf of a purported class of stockholders.

The lawsuit names the Company and each of its current directors,
Dr. Avi Katz, Neil Miotto, John Mikulsky, Dr. Raluca Dinu, Andrea
Betti-Berutto, and Peter Wang, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize
the value of the Company and failing to disclose all material
information necessary for the stockholders to make an informed
decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the business
combination with Lightning.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the
individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining
the business combination or recission of the business combination
and an order directing the defendants to amend the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-4.

The lawsuit also purports to seek a declaration that the defendants
violated their fiduciary duties, damages, and recovery of the costs
of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiff on April 20, 2021.

Lightning eMotors, Inc. is a newly organized Private-to-Public
Equity (PPE) company, also known as a blank check company or
special purpose acquisition vehicle, incorporated in the State of
Delaware and formed for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a
share exchange, share reconstruction and amalgamation with,
purchasing all or substantially all of the assets of, or engaging
in any other similar business combination with one or more
businesses or entities. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado.

LIN'S GARDEN: Hong Seeks to Certify Non-Managerial Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
LIN'S GARDEN RESTAURANT INC. d/b/d Lin's Asian Cuisine; and NEW
DYNASTY CHINESE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Dynasty; HUAYONG LIN, LIANRONG
HUANG, and RU HAI LIN, Case No. e 1:20-cv-02633-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section  216(b);

   2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this

      Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and
      last name, last known address with apartment number (if
      applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-
      mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames

      (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and
      position of:

      "ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
      employees employed at any time from March 28, 2017 (three
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when

      the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
      Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list,

      whichever is later";

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
      any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website

      or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of

      the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete

      and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants

      certifying that the list is complete and from existing
      employment records;

   4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
      dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
      on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;

   6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may

      also be published to social media groups specifically
      targeting the Chinese, Spanish-speaking American immigrant
      worker community;

   7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice

      in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed

      locations likely to be seen by all currently employed
members
      of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
      throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;

   8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
      in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the
      Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
      newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel

      list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
      undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
      English, and Chinese, Spanish; and

   9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation

      on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
      the Opt-in Period.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i1s5GJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, are:

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

LIN'S GARDEN: Must File Response to Class Cert. Bid by June 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIN'S GARDEN
RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02633-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order in connection
to Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification and
other forms of relief that:

   -- the Defendants are directed to file a response by June 1,
      2021; and

   -- Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be due by June 8, 2021.

Lin's Garden is a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCfjTc at no extra charge.[CC]


LOBSTER BAR: June 7 Response Time to Conditional Cert. Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NAVAS, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. LOBSTER BAR GRILLE,
LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-60480-JMS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order extending the time, through and including
June 7, 2021, in which to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion
and Incorporated Memorandum For Conditional Certification of
Collective Action Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Facilitation of Court-Authorized Opt-in Notice.

The Plaintiff, who was formerly employed by Lobster Bar as a
Server, filed the action under the FLSA for unpaid wages. Plaintiff
purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and others
claimed to be similarly situated.

Lobster Bar was served with the Summons and Complaint on March 25,
2021, and on April 21, 2021, filed its Answer and Statement of
Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint.

A copy of Defendant's motion dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvKsYy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Zascha B. Abbott, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Beckerman, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: 954-728-1280
          Facsimile: 954-728-1282
          E-mail: Zascha.Abbott@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Jonathan.Beckerman@lewisbrisbois.com

LOGAN VIEW: Davidson Seeks to Certify FDCPA & CSPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAONNE DAVIDSON,
Individually and on behalf of herself and all similarly situated,
v. LOGAN VIEW, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01021-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
classes:

   -- The Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCPA) class efined as:

      "all individuals in Ohio to whom Logan View sent a
Collection
      Letter within one year prior to the commencement of this
      case, where the letter attempted to collect an alleged
      medical debt;" and

   -- The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) defined as

      "all individuals in Ohio to whom Logan View sent a Collection

      Letter within two years prior to the commencement of this
      case, where the letter attempted to collect an alleged
      medical debt, and where the alleged creditor was not an
      individual physician or dentist."

The Plaintiff Davidson brings this case as a class action against
Defendant Logan View for violations of the FDCPA and the CSPA. Mrs.
Davidson moves for certification of this matter as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(2) and (b)(3), including two classes.

Logan View provides medical equipment and related healthcare
supplies. The Company offers its products to the healthcare
industry in the State of Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p2bG6k
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Mrs. Davidson and the classes, are:

          Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq.
          REICHENBACH LAW
          P.O. Box 711
          Perrysburg, OH 43552-0711
          Telephone: (419) 529-8300
          Facsimile: (419) 529-8310
          E-mail: Greg@ReichenbachLaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Icove, Esq.
          ICOVE LEGAL GROUP, LTD.
          Terminal Tower, Ste. 627
          50 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 802-0000
          Facsimile (216) 802-0002
          E-mail: ed@icovelegal.com

               - and -

          Jefferey Stiffler, Esq.
          THE HECK LAW OFFICES, LTD.
          One Marion Avenue, Suite 215
          Mansfield, OH 44903
          Telephone: (419) 524-2700
          Facsimile: (419) 524-2710
          E-mail: jstiffler@hecklawoffices.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA ASTORGA, an
individual, on behalf of herself and as class representative; HUGO
PADILLA, an individual, on behalf of himself and class
representative, RYAN MICHAEL DODSON, an individual, and KIYOKO
DODSON, an individual, on behalf of themselves and as class
representatives, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; SHERIFF
ALEX VILLANUEVA, an individual; ALL CITY TOW GIRL LLC, a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 10, all sued in their individual
capacities, Case No. 2:20-cv-09805-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order extending the time by
which the Plaintiffs may file an amended motion for class
certification from May 17, 2021, to June 1, 2021.

The Plaintiffs shall notice the motion so as to provide at least
seven weeks notice of the hearing date, so that Defendants shall
have at least three weeks to file their opposition which will be
due no later than 21 days before the noticed hearing date.

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, is the
most populous county in the United States and in the U.S. state of
California, with more than ten million inhabitants as of 2018. It
is the most populous non–state-level government entity in the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fXCalB at no extra charge.[CC]

LOUISIANA: June 18 Extension to Respond to Amended Complaint Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOK PLAISANCE, ET AL.,
v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., Case No. 3:21-cv-00121-BAJ-EWD (M.D.
La.), the Defendants, Secretary Ava Dejoie and Louisiana Workforce
Commission move for an extension of time to file responsive
pleadings to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint of 30 days, to June
18, 2021 and an extension of time to file an opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to a date to be set by
the Court in connection with a schedule established for the hearing
of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

On April 29, 2021 Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery and
Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Pending Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 39) pending the Court's ruling on defendants' motions
to dismiss based which is focused on this court's jurisdiction.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3zdns at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kellen J. Mathews, Esq.
          William B. Gaudet, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          450 Laurel St., Suite 1900
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 336-5200
          Facsimile: (225) 336-5220
          E-mail: Billy.Gaudet@arlaw.com
                  Kellen.Mathews@arlaw.com

MAJESTIC DUDE: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HOUSE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. MAJESTIC DUDE RANCH; and
ROBERT A. BUCKSBAUM, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-01505-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order granting the
Second Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Class Certification
Deadlines.

The discovery deadline for Phase I discovery is extended to June
30, 2021. The deadline for the filing of the Motion for
Collective/Class Certification is extended to July 31, 2021.

A copy of the Court's minute order  dated May 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wAqRpX at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2543: Ruling on Attys.' Fees & Costs in GM Switch Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order relating to the
allocation of economic loss counsel's fees and expenses.

In February 2014, General Motors LLC ("New GM") announced the
recall of certain General Motors vehicles that had been
manufactured with a defective ignition switch that moved too easily
from the "run" position to the "accessory" and "off" positions,
causing moving stalls and disabling critical safety systems.  In
the months that followed, New GM recalled millions of other
vehicles, some for reasons relating to the ignition switch and some
for other reasons.  Not surprisingly, litigation followed, in both
state and federal courts.  The federal cases were ultimately
consolidated in the Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

In December 2020, the Court granted final approval to the class
action settlement of economic loss claims in the long-running
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arising out of defects in, and the
recall of, millions of General Motors vehicles.  The Court also
awarded the Plaintiffs' counsel more than $24 million in attorneys'
fees and nearly $10 million for expenses, but deferred the question
of how to allocate these funds among the many law firms involved in
litigating the class members' claims pending a proposal from the
Class Counsel.

Now pending is the Class Counsel's request for approval of a
proposed allocation that assigns the 53 relevant law firms to one
of three tiers and awards the firms in each tier a specified
percentage of its "lodestar."  The Class Counsel proposes a tiered
structure for allocating the $24.6 million in attorney's fees,
pursuant to which each firm would be reimbursed a specified
percentage of its "adjusted reported lodestar" depending on the
tier.

The two Co-Lead Counsel firms would make up "Tier 1"; "Tier 2"
would consist of the members of the Executive Committee, Liaison
Counsel, and Bankruptcy Counsel; and all remaining Participating
Counsel would constitute "Tier 3."  Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3
firms would collectively be awarded $15,410,185.92, $8,920,490.47,
and $254,595.67, respectively, and, subject to one exception, each
Tier 1 firm would receive approximately 35% of its relevant
lodestar; each Tier 2 firm would receive approximately 19.3%; and
each Tier 3 firm would receive the greater of $1,000 or
approximately 7.85% of its relevant lodestar.  The one exception is
Brown Rudnick, which would receive 23.362% of relevant lodestar,
despite being a Tier 2 firm, given its "contribution, (as reflected
in its lodestar, which is substantially higher than other firms in
its tier) as lead bankruptcy counsel, and given the intensive
proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court."

The proposed allocation of the $9.9 million in costs and expenses
is more straightforward: Participating Counsel would "receive most
of their unreimbursed costs back, and each firm will be reimbursed
the same pro rata share of expenses."  In total, the Class Counsel
propose to allocate the fee award among 53 firms and the costs and
expenses award among 43 firms.

Notably, of the 53 law firms that would receive fees or costs under
the Class Counsel's proposed allocation, only three object.  The
three firms that filed objections to the Class Counsel's proposed
allocation by the March 12, 2021 deadline: (1) Golenbock Eiseman
Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP; (2) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP; and the "Peller Group" (defined as "counsel who worked in
conjunction with Gary Peller, who coordinated their work and
reviewed and submitted hours on their behalf").  All three
objectors are categorized as Tier 3 firms under Class Counsel's
proposal.  Under that proposal, Golenbock, Wolf, and the Peller
Group would be awarded $10,709.17, $50,087.68, and $26,614.14 in
fees, respectively, and $1,146.31, $18,474.39, and $9,327.92 in
costs and expenses, respectively.

Notably, the Objectors do not take issue with the Class Counsel's
proposal to use a tiered approach to allocation of the awards.
Instead, they raise three complaints with respect to their fate
under the proposed plan.  First, the Peller Group contends that
"the proposed discount rate of 7.85% applied to the work of
non-Lead Counsel in Tier 3 is so steep in comparison to the 35%
discount rate of Lead Counsel that it fails to fairly compensate
all non-Lead counsel in the proposed tier three and threatens to
produce negative incentive consequences for the MDL consolidation
process more generally."  Second, all three Objectors argue that
they were assigned to the wrong tier, in whole or in part.  Third,
all three Objectors claim that the proposed allocation fails to
credit them for many hours of compensable work without adequate
explanation.

Judge Furman finds that the Objectors' first two objections --
regarding (1) the discount rates for each tier and (2) the
Objectors' tier assignments -- are without merit.  With respect to
the former, the Judge finds that there is no basis to second guess
Class Counsel's proposed discount rates.  Indeed, the treatment of
Tier 3 firms -- to which the Peller Group primarily objects -- is
arguably more generous than it needed to be.  The 7.85% discount
rate is greater than the Tier 3 firms' share of lodestar relative
to Lead Counsel (7.1%).  And, under the Class Counsel's proposal,
all Tier 3 firms would receive a minimum of $1,000.  If anything,
it is the Peller Group's proposal -- that Tier 3 firms receive
12.5% of lodestar -- that is arbitrary; he himself provides no
argument for that number beyond the conclusory statement that it
"is a more reasonable discount rate."

Given the Class Counsel's superior knowledge, and the corresponding
deference owed to its allocation proposal, that is not enough.  To
the extent that that result leaves the Peller Group (or any other
firm) disappointed, that disappointment is more a function of the
overall fee award than it is a function of Class Counsel's
allocation.  Accordingly, the first objection is overruled.

Nor is there any basis to second guess the Class Counsel's
assignment of the Objectors to Tier 3 rather than Tier 2, Judge
Furman opines.  The Class counsel reasonably took account of the
disparities in the time, effort, and risks incurred by the counsel
and of the leadership roles in the MDL.  Accordingly, the Judge
concludes that the Class Counsel reasonably assigned the Objectors
to Tier3.

On the present record, however, Judge Furman cannot resolve the
Objectors' third set of objections -- that the Class Counsel failed
to credit them for all the compensable work they performed.  He
finds that the Class Counsel does not explain how it arrived at the
"adjusted reported lodestar" figures and whether or to what extent
these figures differ from the lodestar figures that Participating
Counsel submitted to Class Counsel.  Nor does the Class Counsel
explain the basis for their decision to credit the Objectors for
work performed only within particular date ranges.

The Judge holds that it does not suffice for the Class Counsel to
say, as they do, that none of the Objectors' work is technically
compensable under MDL Order No. 13 because it was not authorized,
and that their proposal is "made in good faith as a means of
avoiding further delay in distributing fees and costs for work done
and expenses incurred by all participating counsel long ago."
Having proposed an allocation that credits the Objectors for some,
but not all, of their work, it is incumbent on the Class Counsel to
explain and justify the criteria they used to make these
determinations.

Accordingly, no later than June 2, 2021, the Class Counsel will
file a document, not to exceed fifteen pages, (1) listing the total
reported lodestar submitted by each Participating Counsel; (2)
listing the "adjusted reported lodestar" the Class Counsel used to
calculate the fee awards for each Participating Counsel in the
Proposed Fee Allocation; (3) listing the total costs and expenses
submitted by each Participating Counsel; (4) listing the total
costs and expenses considered by the Class Counsel in calculating
each Participating Counsel's "pro rata share of expenses"; and (5)
to the extent those figures differ, providing an explanation of the
criteria used to determine which hours and expenses were deemed
compensable and which hours and expenses were not, with particular
reference to the Objectors.

To be clear, the Class Counsel need not submit detailed time and
billing records.  But their submission should provide enough for
the Court to exercise its "ultimate power to review applications
and allocations and to adjust them where appropriate" and engage in
a "reasonable analysis" of the proposed allocations in light the
objections that have been raised.  The Objectors are granted leave
to file responses, not to exceed seven pages each, no later than
June 9, 2021.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman overruled the first two
sets of objections from the Objectors, but he reserved judgment on
their third set of objections and, by extension, on the Class
Counsel's motion for approval of their proposed allocations of fees
and costs pending the additional submissions described.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/n464vype from Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN VANCE, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR  (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge James L. Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class
certification motion:

   Deadline to complete discovery on class      August 30, 2021
   certification (not to be construed as a
   bifurcation of discovery):

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion       September 30, 2021
   for class certification:

   Deadline for Amazon.com Inc.                 November 15, 2021
   (Amazon) to respond if Plaintiffs do
   not submit expert testimony in support
   of their class certification motion:

   Deadline for Amazon to respond if            December 3, 2021
   Plaintiffs do submit expert testimony
   in support of their class certification
   motion:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if          34 days after
   Amazon does not submit expert testimony      Amazon's response
   in support of its response:

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to reply if          51 days after
   Amazon does submit expert testimony          Amazon's response
   in support of its response:

Judge Robart says that the court will set further case schedule
deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after
ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for
Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiffs at
any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in
this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by
order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will
alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to
complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily
constitute good cause. As required by LCR 37(a), all discovery
matters are to be resolved by agreement if possible. In addition,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court "direct[s]
that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant
must request a conference with the court" by notifying Ashleigh
Drecktrah at (206) 370-8520.

Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology
company with headquarters in Redmond, Washington. It develops,
manufactures, licenses, supports, and sells computer software,
consumer electronics, personal computers, and related services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0CYtW at no extra charge.[CC]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Schwebel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Avi Schwebel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:21-cv-04301-VB (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 471-6200
          Fax: (212) 935-1166
          Email: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
                 esilverman@hinshawlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sofer Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sholom Sofer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-11666 (D.N.J., May 24, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Wetzler Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rivka Wetzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02909 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021), is brought for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as a result of
the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practices.

According to the complaint, prior to February 11, 2021, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to creditor Synchrony Bank The
Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions incurred
primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically
use of a Gap credit card. Synchrony Bank is a "creditor." Synchrony
Bank purportedly sold the alleged debt to the Defendant who is
collecting the alleged debt.

On February 11, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Synchrony Bank. The
letter states a current balance of $1,750.53 and gives three
payment options: 1) 10% Off - Pay 1 payment of $1,575.48.; 2) 5%
Off - Pay 6 monthly payments of $277.17; 3) Pay $50 per month –
Payments as low as $50 per month. The third option provided by
Defendant is not adequately explained and results in two different
possible interpretations.

First, Option 3 might be construed to be an option where a
discounted amount is being paid in monthly payments of $50 a month.
Second, Option 3 might be construed to be an option where monthly
payments of $50 would be made until the debt is paid off. In
addition, if Option 3 means that the $50 payment would be made
until the debt is fully paid off, the letter is deceptive because
it describes all three options as "options designed to save you
money." If the debt is being paid in full under Option 3, it is not
a discount program and therefore the letter is deceptive.

By failing to explain whether Option 3 is a settlement option or a
full pay option, the Letter is false, deceptive and misleading. As
a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.

MCM is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION: Court Junks Stipulation to Stay Patton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYANT PATTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MIDWEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. dba TRILLIUM
CONSTRUCTION/DRIVERS, a California corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-08580-JFW-MAA (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order denying stipulation to stay action pending
resolution of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment,
vacate dates in amended scheduling order, and set class
certification briefing schedule.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fPmnFh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff Bryant Patton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Tatiana G. Avakian, Esq.
          ARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                   tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Joseph Tojarieh, Esq.
          TOJARIEH LAW FIRM, PC
          10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-5533
          E-mail: jft@tojariehlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Midwest Construction Services, Inc. dba
Trillium Construction/Drivers

          Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
          Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
          Kyle W. Owen, Esq.
          MEDINA M C KELVEY LLP
          925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300
          Roseville, CA 95678
          Telephone: (916) 960-2211
          E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com
                  tim@medinamckelvey.com
                  kyle@medinamckelvey.com

MILBERG LLP: District of Arizona Certifies Class in Bobbitt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Philip Bobbitt, et al., Plaintiffs v. Milberg LLP, et
al., Respondents, Case No. CV-09-00629-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz.), Judge
Raner C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona issued an order:

     (i) granting in part Bobbitt's Motion for Reconsideration
         of, or, in the Alternative, Vacating of Order Denying
         Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
         Counsel;

    (ii) granting Bobbitt's Motion for Class Certification and
         Appointment of Class Counsel; and

   (iii) granting in part Intervenor Lance Laber's Reiterated
         Motion to Intervene or, in the Alternative, Motion for
         Leave to Amend Complaint.

The class action is based on underlying litigation in Drnek v.
Variable Annuity Life Ins., No. CV-010242-TUC-WDB (D. Ariz. May 25,
2001), wherein two investors sued the Variable Annuity Life
Insurance Company ("VALIC") on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, alleging that VALIC sold them tax sheltered
annuities without warning them the investments were already in
tax-sheltered accounts.  These annuities made money for VALIC, but
the investors paid more for the annuities and incurred unnecessary
fees.

District Judge William D. Browning certified the class without
conducting the analysis required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.  When the plaintiffs' attorneys missed the deadline for
disclosing expert witnesses, the district court precluded the
experts.  In August 2005, the district court decertified the class
and dismissed the class-action claims because the plaintiffs had no
expert witnesses to testify about class-wide causation or damages.
The plaintiffs' attorneys did not notify the putative plaintiffs of
their failure to meet the deadlines or inform them of the
decertification and dismissal order.

In 2009, Plaintiffs Philip Bobbitt and John Sampson brought the
instant class action suit for negligence and breach of fiduciary
duty against the Drnek litigation attorneys: Milberg LLP, Melvyn
Weiss, Michael Spencer, Janine Pollack, Lee Weiss, and Brian Kerr;
Uitz & Associates and Ronald Uitz; the Lustigman Firm, Sheldon and
Andrew Lustigman.  Early in the litigation, the Plaintiffs asked
the district court to certify the same class of individuals that
had previously been certified in the Drnek litigation.  Applying
the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, District Judge Frank
R. Zapata found that class litigation would be unmanageable because
the district court would need to apply the law of every state in
which a putative plaintiff was domiciled.

Plaintiffs Bobbitt and Sampson then filed a motion to dismiss the
suit with prejudice, stating that the denial of certification made
litigation economically impractical.  However, they noted that
putative Plaintiff Lance Laber would be seeking intervention for
the purpose of appealing Judge Zapata's denial of class
certification.  Judge Zapata granted both the motion to dismiss and
Laber's subsequently filed motion to intervene.  Following his
joinder in the lawsuit, Laber appealed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had
misapplied the Restatement, in that it is Arizona law that governs
the claims of all putative Plaintiffs, not the law of each state in
which a putative plaintiff is domiciled.  So, the Ninth Circuit
vacated the district court's order denying certification and
remanded, indicating that it had no opinion as to whether class
certification was ultimately appropriate.  A week after Judge
Zapata reopened the case upon remand, Laber filed a second motion
to intervene to serve as class representative.

Before Laber's motion could be decided, Milberg filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, arguing the Ninth
Circuit did not have jurisdiction over Laber's appeal. The Supreme
Court stayed the case while it considered a similar issue in
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 1702 (2017). In Baker, the
Supreme Court ruled that federal appellate courts lack jurisdiction
to review an order denying class certification when the named
plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice to
obtain a final judgment. Id. at 1750-51. In light of Baker, the
Supreme Court remanded this case back to the Ninth Circuit, and the
Ninth Circuit dismissed its class certification decision for lack
of jurisdiction.

Upon remand, Judge Zapata entered a judgment of dismissal.
Thereafter, Bobbitt filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing the court was required to
follow the Ninth Circuit's now-vacated remand order addressing the
choice-of-law issue.  The district court denied the motion ("Rule
60(b) Order"), concluding it did not have to change its class
certification denial because the Ninth Circuit ultimately admitted
it did not have jurisdiction to overturn that decision.  It also
concluded it did not need to alter the judgment and reopen the case
because Bobbitt had voluntarily dismissed his claims, and the
policy favoring finality of judgments weighed against the request
for relief.  Bobbitt and Laber appealed.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 60(b) Order and remanded,
holding that the district court had not evaluated the appropriate
factors for a Rule 60(b)(6) motion.  As part of the remand, the
Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to grant the Rule 60(b)(6)
motion, vacate the two judgments denying relief and dismissing the
case, permit Bobbitt to seek reconsideration of the order denying
class certification, and allow Laber to file another motion to
intervene. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the district court
could reconsider the issue of what law of the case applied.

Upon remand, Judge Zapata reopened the case, vacated the judgments
pertaining to Bobbitt's voluntary dismissal, and ordered Bobbitt to
file a fourth amended complaint.  Bobbitt filed (1) the amended
complaint, and (2) a motion for reconsideration of the order
denying motion for class certification, or, in the alternative, a
motion to vacate the class certification denial and to appoint
class counsel.  Simultaneously, Laber filed a second motion to
intervene or, in the alternative, motion for leave to amend
complaint.  The Defendants were advised that they did not have to
answer the fourth amended complaint until these pending motions are
resolved.

Analysis

I. Motion for Reconsideration or Motion to Vacate Class
Certification Decision

Milberg argues that the second Motion for Reconsideration of Class
Certification is untimely because it was filed two months after
Judge Zapata vacated the judgments of dismissal and reopened the
case.  Moreover, Milberg argues Bobbitt should have filed a renewed
motion for class certification, rather than a motion for
reconsideration.

Judge Collins holds that Bobbitt's motion is not timely under Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g), because it was filed more than 14
days after the original order (filed in September 2012), the Ninth
Circuit's decision (filed on April 14, 2020), and Judge Zapata's
order vacating the judgments (filed on April 22, 2020).
Regardless, the Judge construes the motion as a timely Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from an order.

The Judge explains that this rule permits the Court to "relieve a
party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding" that is "based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated," or where
"applying it prospectively is no longer equitable."  This sort of
motion "must be made within a reasonable time" and "no more than a
year after the entry" of the order at issue.  "Irrespective of the
grounds, in the end, whether or not to grant reconsideration is
committed to the sound discretion of the court."  The Judge
exercises discretion pursuant to the foregoing authorities and
finds the motion timely.

Milberg also urges the Court to reassess the factors for class
certification.  Bobbitt argues that the Court should grant class
certification for the reasons stated by the Ninth Circuit.
However, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the issue whether
certification is appropriate.  Thus, the Judge grants Bobbitt's
Motion for Reconsideration of the Class Certification Decision in
part, vacates the Sept. 18, 2010 Order denying class certification,
and reconsiders the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment
of Class Counsel.

II. Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class
Counsel

Bobbitt asks the Court to certify the following group: "All persons
who purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract or
who received a certificate to a group variable deferred annuity
contract issued by VALIC, or who made an additional investment
through such a contract, on or after April 27, 1998 to April 18,
2003 (Class Period) that was used to fund a contributory retirement
plan or arrangement qualified for favorable tax treatment pursuant
to sections 401, 403, 408, 408A, or 457 of the Internal Revenue
Code."

Plaintiff Bobbitt asserts that the class definition is identical to
the class that was certified in the Drnek litigation.

Judge Collins finds that class certification is appropriate,
determines Bobbitt is a suitable representative, and appoints
Bobbitt's attorneys as the class counsel.  The Judge finds that (i)
the class was sufficiently numerous; (ii) Bobbitt has met his
burden of showing there are common issues shared by the proposed
class; (iii) the nature of Bobbitt's claim is the same as the
class; (iv) Bobbitt is an adequate and typical representative of
the class; (v) Bobbitt's counsel is adequate; (vi) common issues of
Milberg's actions, legal theories of recovery, presumed reliance,
duty, and breach predominate over the individualized defenses to
recovery; (vii) District of Arizona is an appropriate and desirable
forum in which litigation should proceed; and (viii) any
complexities raised by class litigation are outweighed by the
common issues of law and fact.  Accordingly, the Motion to Certify
Class and Appointment of Class Counsel is granted.

III. Lance Laber's Motion to Intervene

Mr. Laber asks the Court to allow him to either intervene or to
join as an additional plaintiff and permit a fifth amended
complaint adding him as a party.  Milberg argues that Laber's
intervention motion is untimely.  In addition, Milberg argues the
motion is untimely because Laber did not file the motion to
intervene in the 60 days prior to filing the fourth amended
complaint. If he had done so, he could have been included in the
amendment.

First, Judge Collins holds that the motion is timely.  Second,
Laber has an independent ground for jurisdiction: He too was a
putative plaintiff invested in a VALIC variable annuity.  Third,
the basis for Laber's claim rests upon the same factual and legal
contentions as the main action.  Moreover, unlike Bobbitt, Laber
was invested in variable annuities and so his intervention protects
the interests of a certain subset of class that Bobbitt may not be
able to sufficiently represent.  His position also contributes to
development of the underlying factual issues in the suit.  Finally,
at this juncture, intervention will not unduly prolong litigation
because as it stands, no defendant has answered the operative
fourth amended complaint.  The Judge finds that Laber's
intervention is permissible.

The Defendants object to amendment because of the age of the case
and the number of previous amendments.  They argue amendment would
greatly prejudice them and unduly delay proceedings.  They also
claim amendment is futile because Bobbitt had no standing to join
and Laber's claim is therefore time barred.

The Judge holds that the case is old, but the procedural posture is
not.  A fifth amended complaint does not prejudice Milberg as it
has not yet responded to the fourth amended complaint.
Furthermore, Milberg has been aware of the likelihood of Laber's
intervention for years.  In addition, intervention will not require
discovery to be reopened in its entirety but may merely necessitate
disclosure of Laber's financial records and his deposition.  There
is also good cause for the amendment given the procedural posture
of this case and as noted previously, Laber qualifies for
permissive joinder.  Thus, Bobbitt and Laber will be permitted to
file a fifth amended complaint, adding Laber as a named party.
Laber's Motion to Intervene is granted in part.

Order

Accordingly, Judge Collins granted in part Plaintiff Phillip
Bobbitt's Motion for Reconsideration of, or, in the Alternative,
Vacating of Order Denying Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel.  He vacated District Judge Zapata's
Sept. 18, 2012 Order denying class certification.

The Judge granted Plaintiff Bobbitt's Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.  The certified
class includes the putative class members defined in section III(b)
of the Order.  The attorneys representing Phillip Bobbitt for the
Motion for Class Certification are appointed as the class counsel
for putative Plaintiffs.

The Judge granted in part Intervenor Lance Laber's Reiterated
Motion to Intervene or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint.

The Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint adding Laber as a
party plaintiff by June 18, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3une4erj from Leagle.com.


MUD WTR INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MUD WTR, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. MUD WTR, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03020 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

MUD\WTR -- https://mudwtr.com/ -- is a coffee alternative
consisting of organic ingredients lauded by cultures old and young
for their health and performance benefits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sept 22 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIO and ROSA
CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH and TERESA
MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC
(N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-MCE-JDP (E.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Morrison C. England Jr. entered an order granting the Parties
stipulated motion to extend case schedule deadlines as follows:

        Event                    Current         Proposed New or
                                 Deadlines       Extended
Deadlines

   Class Certification Amended   May 14, 2021    Sept. 3, 2021
   Expert Report Deadline
   (for Plaintiffs):

   The Plaintiffs' Deadline to   June 4, 2021    Sept. 22, 2021
   File Motion for Class
   Certification:

   Class Certification Amended   July 2, 2021    Oct. 20, 2021
   Expert Report Deadline
   (for Defendants):

   The Defendants' Opposition    July 30, 2021   Nov. 17, 2021
   to Plaintiffs' Motion for
   Class Certification:

   The Plaintiffs' Reply in      Sept. 10, 2021  Dec. 29, 2021
   Support of Motion for
   Class Certification:

   Class-Certification Expert    Sept. 24, 2021  Jan. 22, 2022
   Discovery Cutoff:

   Merits discovery cutoff:      Dec. 13, 2021   April 22, 2022

   Disclosure of Expert          Feb. 4, 2022    May 25, 2022
   Witnesses and Information
   Required by Rule 26(a)(2):

   Rebuttal Expert Reports       March 14, 2022  July 1, 2022

   Expert Discovery Cutoff       April 18, 2022  Aug 8, 2022

   Deadline for Parties to       May 16, 2022    Sept. 2, 2022
   File Dispositive Motions:

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34wBsX1 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Rachel E. Morowitz, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com

              - and -

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Nick Styant-Browne, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO L.L.P.
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com
                  nick@hbsslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq.
          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: jbs@severson.com
                  mks@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com

NCR CORPORATION: Achilles Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Thomas Achilles v. NCR CORPORATION and MICHAEL
HAYFORD, was removed from the Superior Court for the Judicial
District of New Haven, to the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on May 17, 2021, and assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-00682-VLB.

The Plaintiff Thomas Achilles filed a class action complaint for
unpaid overtime wages against NCR and Hayford on April 16, 2021 in
the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald E. Frechette, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          20 Church Street, 20th Floor
          Hartford, Connecticut 06103
          Phone: (860) 525-5065
          Fax: (860) 527-4198
          Email: Donald.frechette@lockelord.com


NEO TECHNOLOGY: July 1 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portier v. NEO Technology
Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30111 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' Assented Motion for Extension of Time to July 1,
2021 to file motion for class certification and until September 16,
2021 for the Defendant's response.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.

Neo Tech was founded in 1996. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of computers, and computer
peripheral equipment.[CC]

NETFLIX INC: New Boston VSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF NEW BOSTON, TEXAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NETFLIX, INC., and HULU, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00135-RWS (E.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its
Motion for class certification and appointment of class
representative and class counsel.

New Boston moves for certification of the proposed Class because
the issues in this case arise from the uniform application of Texas
Video Services Providers Act ("VSPA"), which applies equally to all
proposed Class members. The central question, which is dispositive
for all proposed Class members, is whether Defendants Netflix are
"video service providers" under the Act. The answer is the same for
all proposed Class members: Defendants are indeed video service
providers because they provide video programming comparable to
programming provided by television broadcast stations over wires or
cables located, at least in part, in public rights-of-way.

This case involves more than 1,000 proposed Class members. Without
a representative, aggregate action, thousands of municipalities and
townships across the State of Texas will be required to institute
their own separate actions to enforce the Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fPQg8s
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Michael Angelovich, Esq.
          C. Cary Patterson, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: 512-328-5333
          E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
                  mangelovich@nixlaw.com
                  cihrig@nixlaw.com
                  ccp@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
          Brittany Hartwig, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: 440-953-8888
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                  bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Peter Schneider, Esq.
          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560
          E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com

NEW HORIZON: Extension to Reply to Class Cert Opposition Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDOUL MALIK TAHIROU, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NEW HORIZON
ENTERPRISES, LLC; ELIZABETH JOHNSON; JANELLE LESINKSY; and JOYCE
MICHELLE CARSWELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00281-MPS (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order moving for a 30 day
extension of time to respond to the Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for FRCP Rule 23 Class Certification dated May
4, 2021, through and until June 17, 2021.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vH4csl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth W. Swedock, Esq.
          Mark P. Carey, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Swedock, Esq.
          CAREY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          71 Old Post Road, Suite One
          Southport, CT 06890
          Telephone: (203) 255-4150
          Facsimile: (203) 255-0380
          E-mail: mcarey@capclaw.com
                  eswedock@capclaw.com

NEW PEOPLES BANK: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that New Peoples Bank,
Inc. continues to defend a purported class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

The Bank was named as a defendant in an action filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on
December 22, 2020.

The plaintiff alleges that the Bank breached a contractual
arrangement in the assessment of overdraft fees for the
re-presentment of items previously returned due to lack of
sufficient funds.

The plaintiff is seeking class action status in its pursuit of this
complaint.

The Bank denies the allegation and intends to vigorously defend
against this claim.

New Peoples Bankshares said, "As no formal or specific financial
demand has been made, and due to the preliminary status of this
case, any possible loss cannot be estimated at this time."

New Peoples Bankshares, Inc., is a Virginia bank holding company
headquartered in Honaker, Virginia. New Peoples subsidiaries
include: New Peoples Bank, Inc., a Virginia banking corporation and
NPB Web Services, Inc., a web design and hosting company (NPB
Web).


NEW YORK ELEGANT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Elegant
Fabrics, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. New York Elegant Fabrics, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03012 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

New York Elegant Fabrics -- https://www.newyorkelegantfabrics.com/
-- is family owned fabric store serving fashion, theatricals and
students for the last 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Landsdown Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New-Indy Catawba LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Shirley Landsdown, Ethel Piercey, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. New-Indy
Catawba LLC, New-Indy Containerboard LLC, Case No.
0:21-cv-01586-JMC (D.S.C., May 27, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Environmental Matters.

New-Indy -- https://newindycontainerboard.com/ -- is an
independent, privately-owned manufacturer and supplier of
corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin linerboard in
the industrial packaging industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Paul Cantwell, Esq.
          CANTWELL LAW FIRM
          PO Box 600
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Phone: (843) 801-4104
          Email: josh@cantwelllawfirm.org


NIELLO MOTOR: Mcguckin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niello Motor Car
Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Mcguckin, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Niello Motor Car Company, Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00300943-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other employment Civil - Unlimited."

Niello Motor Car Company -- https://www.niello.com/ -- provides
automobiles services. The Company offers retail sale of new and
used automobiles, finance, parts, and repairs services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446
          Phone: 310-888-7771
          Fax: 310-888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com


NOOM INC: Bid to Compel Sampling Protocol in Nichols Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOJO NICHOLS, et al., Plaintiffs v. NOOM INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-3677 (LGS) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Sampling Protocol.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
Noom tricked consumers into signing up for its weight loss program
via an autorenewal feature and made it difficult for consumers to
cancel their Noom subscription.  Discovery has been extensive and
involves collection and review of data from multiple digital
platforms.  Due to the volume of data in some of Noom's data
repositories (each of which contains millions of communications),
the parties have met and conferred regarding collection of a sample
of information from these repositories.  The repositories are
called UserVoice, Zendesk and GroupsMagic.

Although Noom has reservations about the relevance and usefulness
of the Plaintiffs' sampling methodology for UserVoice and Zendesk,
Noom has agreed to produce samples from those repositories using
the Plaintiffs' preferred methodology.

Magistrate Judge Parker's decision addresses the parties' dispute
about the methodology for sampling data from GroupsMagic.

GroupsMagic is Noom's coaching chat repository.  Consumers are
assigned a coach who assists the consumer in using the Noom
application and reaching weight loss goals.  The coach also assists
consumers who want to end their Noom subscription.  The consumer
and the coach communicate through the coach chat function, and the
conversations are stored in GroupsMagic.  When a user begins a
coach chat, he or she is assigned a unique access code. GroupsMagic
contains 9.8 million access codes.  Each access code links to a
chat log of every communication a Noom user has with his or her
coach.  Therefore, each of the 9.8 million chat logs may contain
hundreds of communications that may span many months.

In response to the Plaintiffs' document requests, Noom agreed to
produce a representative sample of coach chats about cancellation
and autorenewal, as well as coach training materials and scripts
pertaining to Noom's autorenewal policy, refunds, cancellations,
and any bot coaching.

The Plaintiffs seek production of the entire chat log history for
2,500 unique Noom users, collected randomly from the GroupsMagic
repository.  They intend to conduct aggregate analyses of these
communications to ascertain the number and frequency of
cancellation and enrollment complaints that the Defendants received
in connection with their trial period and automatic enrollment
practices, as well as when the Defendants were notified by
consumers that consumers were being deceived by the practices
challenged in the litigation.  The Plaintiffs would then
extrapolate their findings onto the larger repository.

Noom proposes limiting the dataset from which the random sample is
generated to the coach chats of users who are likely to be members
of the putative class, that is, users of the Healthy Weight program
during the period Jan. 1, 2017 through the date of collection.  It
further proposes applying search terms to capture communications
related to autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot coaching
and, after applying those search terms, extracting a list of access
codes from the search term-positive results to which the Plaintiffs
may apply the same randomization process the parties are using for
Zendesk to identify 2,500 chat logs for production.  After the
randomized pull from the subset of chat logs found to contain
relevant communications, Noom proposes further limiting the
production by only producing communications within a 48-hour window
of the search-term positive communication.

Noom's rationale for so limiting the production is that the random
sampling of 2,500 chat logs the Plaintiffs request may contain
hundreds (if not more) of irrelevant discussions about users'
weight-loss journey, food anxieties, life stressors, alcohol use,
and other highly personal information.  It also argues that the
Plaintiffs' request is not proportional to the needs of the case
insofar as it would have to redact protected health information and
other personally identifying information from thousands of chats.
Finally, it argues the purpose for which it agreed to produce the
chats was simply to provide a sample of the types of communications
had with coaches to terminate the program or complain about the
autorenewal features of the program, not to provide data for
statistical analysis.

To minimize the chance that reviewers improperly tag relevant
searches and to ensure that the search terms capture the majority
of relevant chats, Noom has agreed to do two things. First, Noom
has agreed to have two reviewers independently review a sample of
the non-search term positive results.  The reviewers will compare
their results, and if there is any disagreement, a third,
independent reviewer will facilitate a discussion to resolve the
discrepancy in the coding.  Once that process is complete, the
reviewers will report the results, including a confidence interval,
to demonstrate that the proposed search terms fail to capture only
a reasonably small proportion of coach communications related to
autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot coaching.

According to Noom's expert, this mechanism -- known as "content
analysis" -- is a reasonable and appropriate safeguard to ensure
that the population of communications given to the Plaintiffs
covers the vast majority of relevant communications in the
sampling.  Second, Noom has agreed to run the same type of "content
analysis" review on the search terms hits.  Two reviewers will
independently conduct a simultaneous review of the document set. To
the extent there is any disagreement in the coding, a third,
independent reviewer will facilitate a reconciliation to resolve
the disagreement between the two reviewers.  This practice is
frequently used to resolve concerns over review bias in analyses of
the content of communications.

Turning first to the dataset from which the sample should be
pulled, Judge Parker agrees with Noom that the sample should be
generated only from users of the Healthy Weight program.  These are
the users whose chats could contain relevant information, as they
are the users contemplated for the putative class.  Any proper
statistical analysis starts with a relevant pool; in the case, the
putative class members are the relevant pool/population to study.
She orders Noom to provide the Plaintiffs with the total number of
unique access codes (that is, unique user-coach chats) in the
population.  There is no need for a start date limitation if Noom
can segregate chats of those users who were in the Healthy Weight
program.

The next question is whether the subset of putative class member
chats should be further culled by applying search terms to locate
those chat logs with words that might indicate a chat including
communications about autorenewal, refunds, cancellations, and bot
coaching.  Search terms are often used to cull emails and in fact
are being used by the parties in the case to cull emails and other
communications.

The Plaintiffs' objection to their use here appears to be based on
the intended purpose of their review of the chat logs.  Unlike
emails, they want to use statistics to analyze the percentage of
users complaining about autorenewal and difficulty canceling their
Noom subscription.  Thus, while the particulars of the
communications may be of interest, there is also an interest in
ensuring a statistically sound sample for the purpose of this
statistical analysis.  Noom, in contrast, does not view the chat
logs as data amenable to statistical analysis and therefore
believes the argument about a statistically sound sample is a red
herring.  Rather, it reasons, it should only have to produce
relevant and responsive chats.  It also argues that it never agreed
to produce the chats for statistical review.

Judge Parker rejects Noom's argument in part.  For a period of
time, the only way to cancel a subscription was through a coach.
Therefore, the coach chats will contain relevant information about
canceling a subscription.  To the extent the Plaintiffs wish to
count the number of chats where users complained about autorenewal
or difficulty canceling, they may do so.  Noom can later make legal
arguments about the validity and admissibility of such an analysis.
There is no merit to Noom's argument that the Plaintiffs should be
limited in their use of the information produced to support their
claims.  Accordingly, Noom should not apply search terms before
generating the randomized sampling of 2,500 user-coach chats.

Judge Parker is, however, concerned about the potentially large
amount of highly personal, irrelevant information that would be
produced through the Plaintiffs' proposal.  A random sample from
the total pool of Healthy Weight users can be generated, providing
the statistical soundness that the Plaintiffs desire.  After that
sample of 2,500 chats is generated, however, a process can be
applied to identify those among the sample that contain the types
of communications that Plaintiffs are seeking.

The Plaintiffs suggest that they will (1) conduct a linear review
of the full chat logs for all 2,500 users to identify those
containing communications they would deem "complaints" concerning
the features of the Noom program at issue, (2) use that total as
the numerator to ascertain the percentage of the 2,500 users who
had such complaints, and (3) extrapolate that percentage onto the
larger pool of Healthy Weight users from which the sample was
generated.  Noom, alternatively, suggests that search terms be
applied to identify relevant chats.

Insofar as the parties have already identified search terms to
identify these types of communications, Judge Parker holds that
Noom's proposal makes sense from an efficiency standpoint and from
a standpoint of preventing disclosure of irrelevant communications
and those that are highly personal to users.  Noom can utilize its
content analysis process to evaluate the "null set" among the 2,500
chats pulled to ensure the search terms were appropriately designed
to identify the vast majority of relevant chats.  It can similarly
use its content analysis process to evaluate the chats returned as
hits to ensure that they are properly tagged as relevant and
responsive.

Through this process, Judge Parker says, Noom can identify with a
high degree of accuracy the number of users among the random sample
of 2,500 who have relevant complaints.  The Plaintiffs do not
actually need to see the chats for the remainder of the 2,500 users
for purposes of their statistical exercise or for any other
purpose.  Indeed, they are not entitled to them, as they do not
contain relevant communications within the meaning of Rule 26.

Next, Noom proposes that it be permitted to withhold portions of
the chat logs for the complaining subset users to eliminate
communications that do not bear on autorenewal, cancellation, and
complaints about bot coaching.  Rather than do this through a
linear review of the chat logs, it proposes that it produce
communications within a 48-hour window around a search term
positive "hit" within a log.  Noom does not explain why 48 hours is
the appropriate time period to capture relevant communications.

Judge Parker notes that it is possible that a user might have a
conversation about canceling over a period of weeks.  It is also
possible that the entirety of the chat may include information
about the user experience that led to the complaint about the
autorenewal or other features of the program at issue in the case.
Thus, Judge Parker is not convinced that the complaining subset of
user-coach communications should be truncated by the 48-hour
limitation, or any other limitation for that matter.

Noom argues that it will need to review the chat logs and redact
for personally identifying information and medical related
information and that such a review is burdensome and not
proportional to the needs of the case.  However, Judge Parker has
already cut the number of the 2,500-sample set that actually needs
to be produced to only those chat logs comprising the complaining
subset, which will inevitably reduce the review burden.
Additionally, because there is a Protective Order in place, Noom
can elect to forego redaction and rely on the Protective Order.  To
ensure greater protection, Noom also may designate the chats
"attorneys' eyes only."  Also, both parties are reminded that no
personally identifying information of users may be publicly filed
with the Court -- such information must be redacted per Court
rules.  Therefore, Noom can reduce its burden by relying on these
privacy safeguards for this limited set of information.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Parker granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2cck56ua from Leagle.com.


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Barney Class Certification Hearing Set for July 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the hearing on the
motion for class certification in the putative class action suit
initiated by George Barney is set for July 12, 2021.

On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.


In an Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
entities involved in any transaction in Nova's stock from December
3, 2015 through December 20, 2018.

They claim that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its
purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as
lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned
$460 million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated its
reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with two major customers.  

Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these representations was
exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha website in which it
was claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence
of several entities identified as significant customers.
Plaintiffs, however, have offered no evidence of falsity other than
the Seeking Alpha blog.

Nova denies that there were any misstatements made in its public
disclosures. It also, inter alia, challenges plaintiffs' ability to
establish loss causation and damages.

By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint Nova, Ms. Lam and Mr. Chuang filed.
The Nova Defendants accordingly answered the Amended Complaint.  

The Court entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial
conference for July 20, 2020 that has now been extended until an
unspecified date in August, 2021.

On April 9, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify a Class.  

A hearing on this Motion has been set for July 12, 2021.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.


OAKLAND, CA: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Due June 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTI POLICE-TERROR
PROJECT, COMMUNITY READY CORPS, SEAN CANADAY, MICHAEL COHEN,
MICHAEL COOPER, ANDREA COSTANZO, JOHNATHAN FARMER, LINDSEY
FILOWITZ, DANIELLE GAITO, KATIE JOHNSON, BRYANNA KELLY, JENNIFER
LI, IAN McDONNELL, MELISSA MIYARA, LINDSEY MORRIS, LEILA MOTTLEY,
NIKO NADA, AZIZE NGO, NICOLE PULLER, MARIA RAMIREZ, AKIL RILEY,
AARON ROGACHEVSKY, TARA ROSE, ASHWIN RUPAN, DANIEL SANCHEZ,
CHRISTINA STEWART, TAYAH STEWART, KATHERINE SUGRUE, CELESTE WONG,
and QIAOCHU ZHANG; on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police Chief SUSAN E.
MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES, OPD Officer MAXWELL
D'ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS
(N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge JOSEPH C. SPERO entered a briefing
schedule order for plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
follows:

     -- Defendants' Opposition Due:           June 18, 2021

     -- Plaintiffs' Reply Due:                July 9, 2021

     -- Hearing Date:                         August 6, 2021

Oakland is a city on the east side of San Francisco Bay, in
California. Jack London Square has a statue of the writer, who
frequented the area. Nearby, Old Oakland features restored
Victorian architecture and boutiques. Near Chinatown, the Oakland
Museum of California covers state history, nature and art.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34xn9l3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Walter Riley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY
          1407 Webster Street, Suite 206
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 451-1422
          Facsimile: (510) 451-0406
          E-mail: walterriley@rrrandw.com

               - and -

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com

               - and -

          James Douglas burch, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          558 Capp Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104
          E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org

OHIO RENAL: Freeman Conditional Certification Bid Due August 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freeman v. Ohio Renal Care
Group LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02402 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an order for following schedule:


   -- Motions to amend pleading or add additional parties due
      Aug. 25, 2021;

   -- Motions directed to the pleadings due Aug. 25, 2021;

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification under
      Fair labor Standard Act (FLSA) due Aug. 25, 2021;

   -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23
      due Oct. 26, 2021;

   -- Fact discovery cut-off is Dec. 27, 2021;

   -- Dispositive motion deadline is Jan. 25, 2022;

   -- Expert discovery cut-off is April 28, 2022;

   -- Initial Expert Report(s) due Feb. 28, 2022; and

   -- Rebuttal expert report(s) due March 31, 2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Renal Care Group Eastern Ohio LLC provides dialysis facilities. The
Company produces dialysis equipment, dialyzers, and related
disposable products, as well as supplies of renal
pharmaceuticals.[CC]

OPINEL USA: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opinel USA Inc. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Opinel USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03010-WFK-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

Opinel -- https://www.opinel-usa.com/ -- has been manufacturing
knives and tools in the French Alps since 1890.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


OREGON DOC: Menefee Action Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANDREW LARONN MENEFEE,
v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COFFEE CREEK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
DOUG SHEPPARD; and COLETTE PETERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-02024-SB (D.
Oreg.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order
granting the Defendants' motion to stay action pending resolution
of class certification in the Maney case.

On April 28, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter
pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney.
Maney Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 3,
2021.

LeAndrew Menefee, a self-represented litigant in the custody of the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC), filed this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Colette Peters, Dough
Sheppard, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF) and ODOC,
alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.

Menefee is an adult in custody (AIC) of ODOC and is currently
housed at the Oregon State Penitentiary. On November 19, 2020,
Menefee filed this action against Defendants, alleging that
Defendants knowingly exposed him to COVID-19 and that ODOC's
failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates his Eighth
Amendment rights.

The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the Maney Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to their health and safety by failing
adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing,
testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking, and vaccines. The
Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of a class of
similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1) the Damages
Class; (2); the Vaccine Class; and (3) the Wrongful Death Class.

On January 21, 2021, the Maney Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary
injunction requiring ODOC to offer all AICs housed in ODOC
facilities a COVID-19 vaccine, and sought provisional
class certification of the Vaccine Class, which includes: "All
adults in custody housed at Oregon Department of Corrections
facilities (ODOC) who have not been offered COVID-19
vaccinations."

On February 2, 2021, this Court granted the Maney Plaintiffs'
motion for provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class and
motion for a preliminary injunction.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 17, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0WKWc at no
extra charge.[CC]

OREGON DOC: Seeks Stay of Albrecht Case Pending Resolution in Maney
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ABO, et al., v.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State of Oregon,
et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00196-SB (d. Oreg.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order staying the Albrecht case pending
resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney.

The Defendants move to stay this case pending the resolution of the
motion for class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570. This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19
litigation against the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC")
and/or related persons in the District of Oregon. Defendants will
be seeking a brief stay of all individual cases that could fit
within the putative classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending
resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney.

A brief stay in this matter is appropriate pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in Maney. The plaintiffs in the
Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging
that defendants acted with deliberate indifference and negligence
to plaintiffs’ health by failing to adequately protect them from
COVID-19 by, among other things, implementation and enforcement of
mask requirements, proper sanitization and disinfection,
implementation and enforcement of proper quarantines and social
distancing, prioritization of adults in custody for vaccine
distribution.

The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes: (1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that
have been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1, 2020
and have contracted COVID-19 at least 14 days after they entered
ODOC custody; (2) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals
housed in ODOC facilities who had not been offered COVID-19
vaccination as of January 1, 2021; and (3) a wrongful death class
consisting of the estates of adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities
continuously since February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8,
2020 and for whom COVID-caused or contributed to their death.

The Plaintiffs include KYLE ADAMS; JAMES ADAMS-LEAL; JOEL ALBRECHT;
DANIEL ALCAZAR; MOHAMMED ALI; BRETT ANDRE; JACOB ANTHONY; HOWARD
ARMITAGE; TYLER BACON; GIOVANNI BARR; TADARIO BATTLE; JASON BEAVER;
JOHN BENGE; ROBERT BERNO; DAVID BERTOCH; JAMES BERGOSIAN; OSCAR
CANAS; HERMAN CARTER; CHRISTIAN CAREY; THOMAS CHAMBERY; FOY
CHANDLER; KEVIN CHRIST; ROBERT CLEMENT; SHAWN CLINE; GREG COFFMAN;
DEREK COLE; JAMES COYLE; SKY CRAWFORD; CARL CREECH; TODD CULVER;
DANIEL CUMMINGS; SHAWN CUTLER; CHRIS DAVIS-MCCOY; LESLIE DEGARMO;
XAVIER DELEON-CARBAJAL; JUSTIN DENNEY; ZACHARY DRAPER; HILMI
ELADEM; DAVID ENDSLEY; UVALDO ESPERICUETA; RICKY EXE; CRAIG
FARQUHARSON; DANIEL FELTON; MICHEY FIEZ; JOSEPH FLETCHER; BASIM
FLORO; DANIEL FOWLER; QUINTON FRANKLIN; SCOTT FRAZIER; TERRY
FULLER; EFFIE FULTON; DANIEL GARCIA; DANIEL GARGES; BILLY GARMAN;
DOUGLAS GASKILL; VAUGHN GATCHELL; URIAH GIBSON; JACOB GRANGER;
MATTHEW HANLON; JOHN HARSEN; CODY HATLEY; TIMOTHY HENKEL; JOHN
HERMANN; TERRY HICKMAN; NORMAN HOAG; NICHOLAS HOGAN; JEFFREY
HOSKINS; ABEL IBARRA-FRANCO; LUTHER JACKSON; DERRICK JAY; DANIEL
JOHNSON; RYAN JOHNSON; DONALD JONES; RANDALL JORDAN; MICHAEL
KELLEY; ALAN KENTTA; LAURENCE KING; CHRISTOPHER KITTLER; KORI
KNISLEY; MATTHEW LAMER; STANLEY LEONARD; CHRISTOPHER LORENZEN;
GERARDO LUNA-BENITEZ; MYLO LUPOLI; JOSEPH MACE; DAVID MANLEY; TROY
MARIN; GLEN MARSHALL; ALBERT MARVITZ; MATTHEW MASON; ERIC MCCLAIN;
BRANDON MCLANE; DUSTIN MIKALOW; PETER MILLARD; MARVIN MITCHELL;
PAUL MONTEJO; RANDAL MOTT; ROBIN MUIR; LELAND NICHOLSON; KYLE
NONNEMAN; JOSEPH OHRMUND; DANIEL ORTIZ; JOSHUA OVALLE; RYAN
PEARSON; MARK PECK; SEAN PEN; DANIEL PERRY; ANTHONY PERSON; JOSHUA
POSTEMA; RONALD POWERS; CALEB PRATT; ZACHARY PRAUSS; LONNY PRINCE;
TOREN PRUDEN; ANCLE REED; SHAWN RICHEY; ROCKY ROBISON; DANIEL
RODRIGUEZ; FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ; JACOB ROGERS; CLAYTON SALIKIE;
KELLY SANSBURN; KURTIS SELF; ROY SHINALL; MAXVILLE SINCAIR; GARY
SLOAN; ADAM SMITH; BRETT SMITH; NATHANIEL SMITH; ROBERT STEWART;
PETER STROTHER; MATTHEW STOCKWELL; MARK TEMPLETON; RYAN THOMAS;
FREDDIE TILLETT; BRYAN TRIMBLE; EDWARD TOWNSEND; TREVOR TROLLOPE;
RYAN VANHORN; COREY WADE; JAMES WAGNER; ROBERT WALKER; TRACY WALLS;
RICHARD WEAVER; MICHAEL WHEELER; ANTHONY WHITE; JONATHAN WHITE;
JACOB WHITT; BRANDON WILLIS; CHARLES WITHROW; WAYNE WOODRUFF;
JUSTIN WOODS; RICHARD WRIGHT; and TYLER YOUNG.

The Defendants include OREGON CORRECTIONS ENTERPRISES, a
semi-independent state agency; PAULA MYERS; NICHOLE BROWN; COLETTE
PETERS; SUE WASHBURN; BRAD CAIN; TIM CAUSEY; JOSH HIGHBERGER;
BRANDON KELLY; MIKE GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; TYLER BLEWETT;
KEN JESKE; LIZA EMORY; and DAVID PEDRO.

A copy of the Defendants motion dated May 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIC6Nm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendants Brown, Blewett, Cain, Causey, Emory,
Gower, Highberger, Jeske, Kelly, Myers, Nooth, Oregon Department of
Corrections, Oregon Corrections Enterprises, Pedro, Persson,
Peters, and Washburn, are:

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          Andrew Hallman, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
                  Andrew.Hallman@doj.state.or.us

OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Yocum Case Pending Resolution in Maney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERALD D. YOCUM, v.
Kimberly Hendricks Superintendent-Santiam Correctional Institution,
C/O Watkins, C/O Fonseca, Nurse Greg McNabb, Dr. Dewsnup, Dr.
DiGiulio, C/O. Golds, C/O Byers, Case No. 6:20-cv-01923-MK (D.
Oreg.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying this
case pending the resolution of the motion for class certification
in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570.

This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of
all individual cases that could fit within the putative classes of
plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for class
certification in Maney.

The Defendants says that a brief stay in this matter is appropriate
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in Maney.

The plaintiffs in the Maney matter bring claims under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, alleging that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference and negligence to plaintiffs' health by failing to
adequately protect them from COVID-19 by implementation and
enforcement of mask requirements, proper sanitization and
disinfection, implementation and enforcement of proper quarantines
and social distancing, prioritization of adults in custody for
vaccine distribution. Maney, Fourth Amended Complaint.

The Maney plaintiffs seek to certify the following putative
classes: (1) a damages class that is composed of individuals that
have been housed in ODOC facilities on or after February 1, 2020
and have contracted COVID-19 at least 14 days after they entered
ODOC custody; (2) a vaccine class comprising of all individuals
housed in ODOC facilities who had not been offered COVID-19
vaccination as of January 1, 2021; and (3) a wrongful death class
consisting of the estates of adults incarcerated at ODOC facilities
continuously since February 1, 2020 who died on or after March 8,
2020 and for whom COVID-19 caused or contributed to their death.

The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S.
state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state
prisons.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yYwVLc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          Andrew Hallman, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
                  andrew.hallman@doj.state.or.us

OUTLAW LAB: Reply to Skyline Class Certification Bid Due June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE OUTLAW LABORATORIES, LP LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order setting the following briefing
schedule.

   -- Any opposition shall be filed on or before May 25, 2021.

   -- Any reply shall be filed on or before June 1, 2021.

   -- A hearing on this matter is scheduled for July 2, 2021 at
      1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D.

Third-Party Plaintiff Skyline Market filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

Outlaw is a leading authorized online retailer of discount
supplements & vitamins.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yJXmUA at no extra charge.[CC]


PACKAGED SEAFOOD: Initial Approval Bids in Antitrust Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jannis L. Sammartino entered an order:

   -- The hearing date set for May 20, 2021 to hear the
Preliminary
      Approval Motions is vacated.

   -- The Preliminary Approval Motions are denied as premature.

   -- The Order to Show Cause is discharged.

The Court cannot consider certification of settlement classes until
the Court of Appeals issues a mandate. This conclusion is not
altered by COSI Defendants' dismissal of their appeal or the
prospect of en banc proceedings.

The Court said, "The reasons for vacating the Class Certification
Order do not rest on Rule 23(b)(3)(D) -- "likely difficulties in
managing a class action" -- but the overarching 25 question whether
"the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members," Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3), and apply whether the putative class actions are
settled or further litigated."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVwiNV at no extra charge.[CC]

PARKING REIT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the purported class action suit initiated by
SIPDA Revocable Trust (SIPDA), is set on July 16, 2021.

On March 12, 2019, alleged stockholder SIPDA filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors. SIPDA filed an Amended Complaint on October
11, 2019.

The Amended Complaint purports to assert class action claims on
behalf of all public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between
August 11, 2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August
2017 proxy statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder
approval for the merger of the Company and MVP I (the "2017 proxy
statements"), and (ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the
SEC to solicit proxies for the election of certain directors (the
"2018 proxy statement").

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the 2017
proxy statements were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the alleged two major reasons for the merger and
certain charter amendments implemented in connection therewith were
(i) to facilitate the execution of an amended advisory agreement
that allegedly was designed to benefit Mr. Michael Shustek
financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to give Mr.
Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize based on
terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.

The Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported
plan to internalize its management function.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements
that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to
state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Maryland law to
the members of the class and to the Company.

The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.

On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff. The litigation is still at a preliminary stage.


On January 9, 2020, the Company and the director defendants  moved
to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Upon being advised by the parties
that they are engaged in on-going, active settlement efforts, on
November 30, 2020, the court denied the pending motions to dismiss
without prejudice as moot and subject to refiling if the settlement
efforts are not successful.

The Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the
allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the claims
asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend this action if the parties cannot
complete the settlement in connection with the Maryland Actions,
which settlement if approved by the Court includes dismissal of
this Federal Action.

On November 20, 2020, the parties to the Maryland Actions  executed
a Term Sheet setting forth the terms for a settlement in principle
to resolve the pending lawsuits. On April 13, 2021, the parties,
including the plaintiff in the Federal Action, signed a stipulation
of settlement for a class-based settlement that provided, among
other terms, for (1) a payment of at least $2.5 million into a
settlement fund; (2) certain other forms of relief in connection
with the Bombe Transaction, including a tender offer by a Bombe
affiliate for approximately 15% of the outstanding common stock,
the purchase of certain shares of stock from the former Advisor for
the benefit of the class members, and the extinguishment of certain
shares of common stock issued to the former Advisor in connection
with the internalization in 2019;  and (3) the dismissal of the
Federal Action and the Maryland Actions (the “Settlement”).
The Settlement is contingent upon final approval by the Maryland
Circuit Court, and upon consummation of the Bombe Transaction.  On
April 20, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court preliminarily approved
the Settlement, allowing for notice to be given to the class
members of the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing on final
approval for July 16, 2021.

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PARKING REIT: Settlement Hearing on Magowski Suit Set for July 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the consolidated "Magowski and Barene" suit, is
set on July 16, 2021.

On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed
separate class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative
claims against the Company, certain of our current and former
directors, MVP Realty Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and
Vestin Realty Mortgage II in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
captioned Arthur Magowski v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No.
24-C-19003125 (filed on May 31, 2019) and Michelle Barene v. The
Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27,
2019).

The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims under
Maryland law on behalf of all stockholders (other than the
defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with
any defendant) for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
arising from the Company's decision to internalize its advisory
function.

In this Complaint, Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders
have allegedly been directly injured by the internalization and
related transactions. The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and
derivative claims under Maryland law for breach of fiduciary duty
arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained
in the Magowski Complaint.

The purportedly direct claims are asserted on behalf of the same
class of stockholder as the purportedly direct claims in the
Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the Barene
Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company.

On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Magowski and Barene Complaints, respectively. The
Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things, damages;
declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin the
internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.

Although the motions to dismiss were fully briefed, the Court had
not ruled on the motions when the parties informed the Court of
their settlement discussions and requested a stay of the
proceedings.

Prior to the stay request, limited discovery was conducted in these
actions. By Order dated March 11, 2021, the Court consolidated the
Magowski and Barene actions for all purposes.  .

The Company and the Board of Directors intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits if the parties cannot complete the
class-based settlement described below, which settlement must be
approved by the Court and would include dismissal of the Maryland
Actions and the Federal Action initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust.


The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Company's Board of Directors to take action
with respect to claims belonging to the Company for the alleged
injury to the Company.

On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting similar alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company. The demand includes that claims be initiated against
the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint.

In response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019,
the Board established a demand review committee to investigate the
allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and to make a
recommendation to the Board for a response to the letter. On
September 27, 2019, the Board replaced the demand review committee
with a special litigation committee of one director.

The special litigation committee was empowered, with the assistance
of independent counsel, to investigate the allegations of
wrongdoing made in the letter and make a final determination
regarding the response for the Company to the demand. In light of
the settlement effort discussed below, the work of the special
litigation committee has been suspended.

On November 20, 2020, the parties to the Maryland Actions  executed
a Term Sheet setting forth the terms for a settlement in principle
to resolve the pending lawsuits. On April 13, 2021, the parties,
including the plaintiff in the Federal Action, signed a stipulation
of settlement for a class-based settlement that provided, among
other terms, for (1) a payment of at least $2.5 million into a
settlement fund; (2) certain other forms of relief in connection
with the Bombe Transaction, including a tender offer by a Bombe
affiliate for approximately 15% of the outstanding common stock,
the purchase of certain shares of stock from the former Advisor for
the benefit of the class members, and the extinguishment of certain
shares of common stock issued to the former Advisor in connection
with the internalization in 2019;  and (3) the dismissal of the
Federal Action and the Maryland Actions.  

The Settlement is contingent upon final approval by the Maryland
Circuit Court, and upon consummation of the Bombe Transaction.  

On April 20, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, allowing for notice to be given to the
class members of the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing on final
approval for July 16, 2021.

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PASCHALL TRUCK: Seeks Oral Argument for Rule 23 Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALE CARTER and FORBES
HAYS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC.; ELEMENT FLEET MANAGEMENT CORP.; and
JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the
Defendant Paschall Truck asks the Court for oral argument given the
complexity of the issues presented by Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule
23(b)(3) Class Certification, and PTL's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

Additionally, PTL would like an opportunity to address several new
arguments Plaintiffs asserted for the first time in their reply in
support of their motion for class certification, including the
following:

   -- Unjust Enrichment Claim

      The argument Plaintiffs advance in their reply about why the
      unjust enrichment claim should be certified is essentially an

      opening brief, not a reply.

   -- Forced Labor Claim

      The Plaintiffs advance two new arguments on this claim.
      First, although the Plaintiffs claimed in their motion that
      they could demonstrate the causation element of their Forced

      Labor Claim on a classwide basis, they abandon that argument

      in their reply.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yLaB7r at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendant Paschall Truck, are:

          Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
          E. Ashley Paynter, Esq.
          Karen B. Reisinger, Esq.
          James A. Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
                  apaynter@scopelitis.com
                  kreisinger@scopelitis.com
                  jeckhart@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Van F. Sims, Esq.
          MILLER HAHN, PLLC
          2660 West Park Drive, Suite 2
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270) 554-0051
          Facsimile: (866) 578-2230
          E-mail: vsims@millerlaw-firm.com

PAUL KEMPER: Shaw Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRANCE J. SHAW, v.
WARDEN PAUL S. KEMPER, ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-00622-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order defining the
Class, and the class claims issues, or defenses, and name class
counsel.

The Plaintiffs present this Motion For Certification of the Class
against Racine Correctional Institution (RCI) which leads as the
number one leader of Covid-19 infections with multiple deaths in
the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC).

The Racine Correctional Institution is a state prison for men
located in Sturtevant, Racine County, Wisconsin, owned and operated
by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The facility opened in
1991 and holds 1573 inmates at medium security.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class
dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3wHHsYZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Eastman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of
Philadelphia. The case is styled as Kathleen Eastman, Mary Henin,
Amanda Hay, Matthew Allen, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No.
2:21-cv-02248-MSG (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city -- https://www.phila.gov/
-- is notable for its rich history, on display at the Liberty Bell,
Independence Hall (where the Declaration of Independence and
Constitution were signed) and other American Revolutionary
sites.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          One S. Broad St., Ste. 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Fax: (215) 238-1968
          Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Craig W. Hillwid, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Fax: (215) 238-1968
          Email: chillwig@kohnswift.com
                 whoese@kohnswift.com
                 amanohar@kohnswift.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Trial Not Needed in Guzman Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Guzman, et al. v.
Polaris Industries Inc., et al., Case No. e 8:19-cv-01543-FLA-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order:

   1. granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. mooting the following the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification and the Defendants' Ex Parte Application to
      Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification "Reply" Report and
      Plaintiffs' Use of Merits Reports in Their Class
      Certification Reply Brief, and the remaining portions of
      Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting Amendment of the Scheduling
      Order to Continue Outstanding Motions, Discovery, and Trial
      Deadlines by 185 days.

The Defendants Polaris sell various models of off-road vehicles
that allow occupants to sit side by side. The Defendants' vehicles
are sold under the brand names "RZR," "Ranger," and "General."
Each vehicle is equipped with a roll cage, which is also known as a
rollover protective structure or "ROPS." /The shape, configuration,
and design of the ROP differs among Polaris' side-by-side vehicle
models.

Polaris voluntarily complies with the American National Standards
Institute ("ANSI")/Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association
(""ROHVA") standard for ROPS's, which provides that the ROPS shall
comply with the performance requirements of either International
Organization for Standardization ("ISO") standard 3471 or 29 C.F.R.
section 1928.53.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 12, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bXXq9B at no
extra charge.[CC]


PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Sagastume Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENMA SAGASTUME,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION, an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-06624-DSF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on August 23, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

      -- Class

         "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
         employees who worked for Defendant Psychemedics
         Corporation  within the State of California at any
         time during the period from June 9, 2017 up to the
deadline,
         to be determined by the Court at a later date,
         by which class members may opt-out after being provided
         notice of certification (the "Class Period").
         

      -- Meal Period Subclass:

         All members of the Class who worked  at least one shift
of
         more than five hours at any time during the Class Period.

      -- Rest Period Subclass:

         All members of the Class who worked at least one shift of
         three and one-half hours or more at any time during the
         Class Period.

      -- Meal Premium Regular Rate Subclass:

         "All members of the Class who received a meal premium
         payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at any

         time during the Class Period."

      -- Rest Premium Regular Rate Subclass:

         "All members of the Class who received a rest premium
         payment calculated at their base hourly rate of pay at
any
         time during the Class Period;"

      -- Expense Reimbursement Subclass: All members of the Class
         who were not reimbursed for necessary business-related
         expenses incurred, including but not limited to supplies,

         parking, and use of personal vehicles for work purposes.

      -- On Site Rest Break Subclass:

         "All current and former hourly paid or non-exempt
         employees who worked for Defendant within the State of
         California at any time during the Class Period, who were
         required to remain on company premises during all rest
         breaks.

      -- Rounding Subclass:

         "All members of the Class who were subject to
         Psychemedics' rounding policy during the Class Period.

      -- Automatically Deducted 30-Meal Period Subclass:

         "All members of the Class whose 30-minute meal period was
         automatically deducted from their pay while employed by
         Psychemedics.

      -- Regular Rate Subclass:

         "All members of the Class who earned non-discretionary
         bonuses and other incentive-based compensation, which
         was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to
         calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime
         wages during the Class Period;"

   2. appointing Plaintiff Enma Sagastume as the class
      representative;

   3. appointing Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, and Daniel J.
      Kramer of Lawyers for Justice, PC as class counsel;

   4. requiring the Defendant to provide to counsel for the
      Plaintiff a list of all potential class members including
      their names, social security numbers, last known telephone
      numbers, last known e-mail addresses, and last known
      addresses for class notice purposes, within 30 days following

      this Court's order granting class certification; and

   5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel
      promptly meet and confer regarding a form of notice to the
      class and submit either an agreed upon form or their
      respective requested forms to this Court within 20 days
      following this Court's order

In the alternative, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
Court exercise its broad discretion and certify narrower or broader
classes if the Court deems it so appropriate.

Psychemedics Corporation is a United States corporation which
provides patented, FDA-cleared, CAP certified clinical laboratory
services for the detection of drugs of abuse. The company's
corporate headquarters are located in Acton, Massachusetts and its
laboratory operations are located in Culver City, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fRvAwK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
                  arby@calljustice.com
                  daniel@calljustice.com

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Amended Complaint Drops Class Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the class allegations
have been dropped in the amended complaint in the suit pending
before the New York State Supreme Court.

On December 11, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the New York State Supreme Court by a purported QuantumScape
warrantholder against the Company.

The company removed the case to federal court.

On March 25, 2021, plaintiff amended the complaint to drop the
class allegations.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiff
was entitled to exercise his warrants within 30 days of the closing
of the business combination between QuantumScape and Kensington and
that the proxy statement/prospectus/information statement dated
September 21, 2020 and November 12, 2020 is misleading and/or omits
material information concerning the exercise of the warrants.

The complaint seeks monetary damages for alleged breach of
contract, securities law violations, fraud, and negligent
misrepresentation.

Quantumscape Corporation develops next generation battery
technology for electric vehicles ("EVs") and other applications.
The company is based in San Jose, California.


QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: CA Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quantumscape Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consoldiated putative class action suit in California.

Between January 5, 2021 and January 8, 2021, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California
by purported purchasers of QuantumScape securities against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer or against the Company and
certain members of management and the Board of Directors, and
Volkswagen Group of America Investments, LLC (VGA).

All three complaints allege that the defendants purportedly made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and
prospects, including information regarding the company's battery
technology.

One complaint alleges a purported class that includes all persons
who purchased or acquired our securities between December 8, 2020
and December 31, 2020. The other two complaints allege a purported
class that includes all persons who purchased or acquired the
company's securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31,
2020.

On April 20, 2021, the three actions were consolidated, with the
Court appointing lead plaintiff and counsel.

Quantumscape Corporation develops next generation battery
technology for electric vehicles ("EVs") and other applications.
The company is based in San Jose, California.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST,
and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC., QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an scheduling order as follows:

     Last Hearing Date for             Continued from July 2, 2021

     Class Certification:              to October 29, 2021

     Last day to file Motion           September 10, 2021;
     for Class Certification:

     Last day to file Opposition       October 1, 2021
     to Motion for Class
     Certification:

     Last day to file Reply to         October 15, 2021
     Class Certification Motion:

The Court notes that, with this stipulated extension of the class
certification briefing schedule, and assuming the parties wait till
the last possible date to file, the parties may have to prepare for
trial before the Court has ruled on class certification, and the
parties will have no opportunity to file dispositive motions. Given
that the parties have stipulated to this extension of time with
full knowledge of the consequences, the Court WILL NOT grant any
further requests for continuance.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A Fortune 500
company, Quest operates in the United States, Puerto Rico, Mexico,
and Brazil.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWCBfL at no extra charge.[CC]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sept. 10 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST,
and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC.,
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate, agree,
and ask the Court to enter scheduling Order be amended to reflect
the following dates and deadlines related to class certification,
as follows:

   -- Last Hearing Date for Class Certification: October 29, 2021
      at 10:00 a.m. (currently July 2, 2021);

   -- Last day to file Motion for Class Certification: September
      10, 2021;

   -- Last day to file Opposition to Class Certification Motion:
      October 1, 2021;

   -- Last day to file Reply to Class Certification Motion: October

      15, 2021; and

   -- The remaining dates set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt.
      66) will remain the same.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uvRNpD at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Julian Vargas, Anne West, American
Council of the Blind, and the Proposed Class, are:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE
          & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
                  alison@nshmlaw.com
                  ben@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

          Matther K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          777 6 th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411
          E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Quest Diagnostics Clinical
Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics Holdings, Inc. and Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, are:

          David Raizman, Esq.
          Amber L. Roller, Esq.
          J. Nicholas Marfori
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
          TEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          E-mail: david.raizman@ogletree.com
                  amber.roller@ogletree.com
                  nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com

R&R EXPRESS: Rood Seeks to Strike Late Response to Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEN ROOD, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. R&R EXPRESS, INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01223-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order striking the Defendant's response in opposition
to Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Final
Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The basis for this motion is that Defendant filed its opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification two days after it was
due. By order dated April 16, 2021, the Court denied the Parties'
joint motion to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's
motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff filed his motion for class and collective
certification within the deadline set by the Court's scheduling
order dated January 29, 2021. Per that scheduling order, the
Defendant's opposition, if any, was due on May 17, 2021. The
Defendant filed its opposition on May 19, 2021, two days after the
deadline had expired. The Defendant did not seek an extension
before the deadline expired, and Defendant provided no explanation
for missing the deadline.

The Court should not excuse the Defendant's late filing. The Court
has emphasized in several orders that the deadlines set forth in
the scheduling order were firm. And the Court denied the Parties'
joint request to extend the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion
by one business day, the Plaintiff contends.

R&R provides transportation and logistics services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fFVLYJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated,
are:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227-0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106-4107
          Telephone: (412) 278-1280
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net

RADIUS GLOBAL: Dunlap Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ROSHECK DUNLAP, individually and on behalf of the class
defined herein, Plaintiffs v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02196-TWT-CCB (N.D. Ga., May 26, 2021)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants for
its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt arising out
of student loans with Navient, the Defendant sent her a written
correspondence on or about April 15, 2021. But, instead of
preparing and mailing a collection letter on its own, the Defendant
sent the Plaintiff's private information and the details concerning
her alleged debt, electronically to a commercial mail house in
Oaks, Pennsylvania without the Plaintiff's prior consent.
Allegedly, the Defendant intentionally made these communications in
order to gain an advantage over other debt collectors and generate
additional profits.

By disclosing the Plaintiff's private information to a third-party
without authorization, the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692c(b) and 1692E(2) and (10) due to the multiple addresses on the
correspondence. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful
collection practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory and actual damages and all other applicable relief.

Radius Global Solutions, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meredith J. Carter, Esq.
          Brian M. Clark, Esq.
          M. CARTER LAW LLC
          2690 Cobb Pakrway SE, Suite A5-294
          Smyrna, GA 30080
          Tel: (404) 618-3838
          E-mail: meredith@mcartellaw.com

RAZVAN POP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due August 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, et al.,
v. RAZVAN POP, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered a scheduling order as
follows:

        Initial Disclosures Exchanged by:      May 28, 2021

        Amendments to the Pleadings:           June 18, 2021

        Lay Witness List filed by:             July 19, 2021

        Expert Witness List Filed by           July 19, 2021/
        (Pla/Dft):                             August 19, 2021

        Class Certification Motions Due:       August 16, 2021

        Discovery Cutoff: (Class & Merit)      November 18, 2021

        Dispositive Motion Cutoff:             December 20, 2021

        Case Evaluation (without               December 1, 2021
        sanctions, unless the parties
        so stipulate):

        Settlement Conference before           February 2022
        Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

        Motions in Limine due:                 March 1, 2022

        Final Pretrial Order due:              March 1, 2022

        Final Pretrial Conference:             March 15, 2022

        Trial Date:                            March 29, 2022

        Jury/Bench Jury Estimated              7-10 days
        Length of Trial

A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p5fMdX at no extra charge.[CC]

READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company still
defends itself against the class suits initiated by Taylor Brown
and Peter M. Wagner.

The company is currently involved in two California employment
matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour
claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
Case No. BCV-19-1000390 and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual,
vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO.
37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL.  

Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.  

These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to
alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations.

Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit
in June 2019.  

The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the
company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698,
et seq) purportedly asserting in a representational capacity claims
under the PAGA statute, overlapping, in substantial part, the
allegations set forth in the Brown Class Action Complaint.

On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering
basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class
Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading
International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL. Neither plaintiff
has specified the amount of damages sought.

The company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the
allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA
Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint.

In addition, the company had denied that a PAGA representative
action is appropriate.  

These matters are in their early stages, and the putative class
actions have not been certified. As these cases are in early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the
Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such
matters is not material to its overall financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.  Accordingly, the Company has not
established a reserve for loss in connection with these matters.
The Wagner Individual Complaint has been settled.   

Reading International, Inc., is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based
in Culver City, California.

RENEE'S GARDEN: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renee's Garden LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Renee's Garden LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03028 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

Renee's Garden -- https://www.reneesgarden.com/ -- offers the best
heirloom & gourmet vegetable, flower & herb seeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Fontaine FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERRY FONTAINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.,
and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-CV-06274 EAW
(W.D.N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York grants the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff Fontaine brings the purported class action asserting that
Defendants Resurgent and LVNV have violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"),
and New York General Business Law Section 349.  LVNV is a "debt
buyer that acquires or claims to acquire, among other kinds of
debt, charged-off credit card accounts of consumers by virtue of
assignments from account originators and intermediary debt
sellers."  Resurgent is an affiliate of LVNV that is "involved in
collecting its debts."  Resurgent and LVNV are "under common
ownership and management" and are both "part of the Sherman
Financial Group."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly engaged in
collection activities against him and others similarly situated
related to credit card accounts originated by Synchrony Bank.  More
specifically, he claims that there were "gaps in the chain of
title" with respect to these accounts and that "proper notices of
the assignments by assignors in the chain of title from Synchrony
Bank to LVNV were not provided in accordance with New York law,"
such that "LVNV had no legal interest in the debts."

With respect to the Plaintiff in particular, on Nov. 22, 2019, LVNV
brought a complaint against him in New York State Supreme Court,
Monroe County, alleging that he was liable to LVNV on a credit card
account originated by Synchrony Ban.  LVNV alleged in the state
court collection action that title to the Account had passed from
Synchrony Bank to Sherman Originator III LLC, from Sherman
Originator III LLC to Sherman Originator LLC, and from Sherman
Originator LLC to LVNV.  The Plaintiff maintains that this claimed
chain of title is inaccurate and unsupported by the Bill of Sale
produced by LVNV in the state court collection action.  He further
maintains that he received no notice of any of the claimed
assignments, in violation of New York law.

The credit card agreement that the Plaintiff entered into when he
opened his Account contains an arbitration provision.

The Plaintiff commenced the instant action on April 28, 2020.  The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2020.  The
Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint as of right on Oct. 1,
2020, and the Court accordingly denied the motion to dismiss the
original complaint as moot.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and
to dismiss on Oct. 12, 2020.  The Plaintiff filed his response on
Nov. 3, 2020, and the Defendants filed their reply on Nov. 10,
2020.

Discussion

I. Defendants' Request to Compel Arbitration

A. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement Between Plaintiff and
LVNV

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's claims are subject to
arbitration, and accordingly ask the Court to issue an order
compelling arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. Sections 2-4.  The parties' dispute centers on
whether there is an enforceable arbitration agreement between the
Plaintiff and LVNV2.  In particular, while the Plaintiff does not
dispute that he entered into a valid arbitration agreement with
Synchrony Bank, he contends that there is a factual dispute as to
whether Synchrony Bank's rights pursuant to that agreement were
validly assigned to LVNV.

Judge Wolford agrees with the Defendants that they have come
forward with evidence amply demonstrating that LVNV is the valid
assignee of the Plaintiff's Account and that Plaintiff has failed
to produce or point to any evidence to call into question that
conclusion.  The Plaintiff's contentions regarding the purported
transfers to RFS Holding LLC, and the Synchrony Credit Card Master
Note Trust are supported only by his own allegations, and are thus
insufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the Defendants
in support of their motion to compel arbitration.

Moreover, the Plaintiff's citation to New York state cases
requiring a debt buyer to exactingly "prove a complete and unbroken
chain of title to any debt it seeks to collect" is misplaced.  The
Defendants are not required to comply with New York's stringent
standard of proof for assignees' bringing debt collection cases;
instead, they are required to prove title to the Plaintiff's
Account by a preponderance of the evidence.  LVNV has satisfied
that standard in the case, and the Plaintiff has failed to come
forward with any evidence of his own establishing the existence of
a genuine factual dispute.

Accordingly, the Judge finds as a matter of law that an enforceable
arbitration agreement exists between LVNV and Plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff's Claims Are Within the Scope of the Arbitration
Agreement

The arbitration provision at issue is broadly drafted, encompassing
all "statutory, common law, and equitable claims" that "relate to"
the Account, and further including claims brought against an
"affiliate" of the holder of the debt.  The Plaintiff has not
argued that his claims, including those against LVNV's affiliate,
Resurgent, are not within the scope of his agreement to arbitrate.
Further, the federal statutory claims that the Plaintiff asserts
are not ones that Congress intended to be nonarbitrable.  On this
record, the Judge easily concludes that the Plaintiff's claims fall
within the scope of the arbitration provision.

C. Plaintiff's Class Action Claims Must be Dismissed

As Judge Wolford noted, the arbitration provision in the
Plaintiff's credit card agreement also contains a class action
waiver.  Having found that the arbitration provision is enforceable
by LVNV, the Judge is further constrained to find that the
Plaintiff cannot maintain his class action claims.  Accordingly,
because the Plaintiff waived his right to participate in a class in
court or arbitration, the Judge compels arbitration of his claims
on an individual basis and dismisses his class action claims.

II. Defendants' Request for Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

In the alternative, the Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss
the Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
However, because she has found that the Plaintiff's claims must be
heard by an arbitrator, Judge Wolford holds that the Defendants'
request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is moot.

III. The Proceedings are Stayed Pending Completion of Arbitration

Neither party has requested a stay pending arbitration.  However,
the parties have also not identified any reason why dismissal is a
preferable course of action.  In light of the Second Circuit's
expressed preference for entry of a stay under normal
circumstances, the Court, in its discretion, stays the proceedings
pending arbitration.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wolford grants the Defendants'
pending motion to the extent that it compels arbitration on an
individual basis and dismisses the Plaintiff's class action claims,
but otherwise denies the Defendants' request that the action be
dismissed.  Instead, the matter is stayed pending further order of
the Court.  The parties will advise the Court within 15 days of
entry of a final arbitration decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/cwb5ybjb from Leagle.com.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Extension of Class Certification Deadlines OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monica Quinones v.
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-06559-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson
entered an order:

   1. granting the Parties' requests for Class Certification
      deadline extensions; and

   2. directing the Counsel to submit a joint letter to this Court

      by no later than August 5, 2021 indicating their willingness

      to return to mediation with their selected mediator.

On October 14, 2020, this Court adopted the parties' proposed Civil
Case Discovery Plan, providing for the following relevant
deadlines:

   a. All factual discovery, including depositions, shall be
      completed on or before May 28, 2021;

   b. All motions to compel discovery shall be filed by no later
      than July 2, 2021;

   c. Parties shall complete all discovery relating to experts,
      including depositions, by May 28, 2021,

   d. Motions for class certification, if any, shall be filed by
      no later than July 2, 2021; and

   e. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by no later
      than 90 days after a decision is issued on any motion for
      class certification, if no motion for class certification
      is filed, any dispositive motions shall be filed by no
      later than July 2, 2021.

A copy of the Court's letter order dated May 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oVuc0v at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile (312) 419-0379

ROMEO POWER: California Wage & Hour Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the wage-and-hour
putative class action suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court is
still stayed.

In October 2020, a wage-and-hour class action was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court on behalf of all current and former
non-exempt employees in California from October 2016 to present.

The allegations include meal and rest period violations and various
related claims.

The case is currently stayed pending mediation, which was continued
to July 2021.

Romeo Power said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these
claims and the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be
estimated."

Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense
battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla,
Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015
with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the
advancement of human health and economic development. The company
is based in Vernon, California.


ROMEO POWER: Faces Toner Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces a
class action suit initiated by Victor J. Toner.

On May 6, 2021, plaintiff Victor J. Toner filed a class action
complaint against Romeo, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The allegations in the Toner Complaint are substantially similar to
the allegations in the Nichols complaint.

The relief sought includes money damages, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.

Romeo said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these claims and
the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be
estimated."

Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense
battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla,
Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015
with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the
advancement of human health and economic development. The company
is based in Vernon, California.


ROMEO POWER: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set for July 15
------------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the hearing on motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action suit intiated
by Travis Nichols, is scheduled on July 15, 2021.

On April 16, 2021, plaintiff Travis Nichols filed a class action
complaint against Romeo, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Nichols Complaint alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the supply of battery cells, which
are components of Romeo's products, and the Company's ability to
meet customer demand and achieve its revenue forecast for 2021.

The relief sought includes money damages, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.

The court has scheduled a hearing for July 15, 2021 to consider
motions for lead plaintiff appointment.

Romeo said, "We intend to defend ourselves against these claims and
the possible range of loss, if any, cannot currently be
estimated."

Romeo Power, Inc. are creators of the world's most energy-dense
battery packs. Top engineers and designers from SpaceX, Tesla,
Samsung, Apple, and Amazon, started Romeo Power Technology in 2015
with the belief that safe and reliable energy is crucial to the
advancement of human health and economic development. The company
is based in Vernon, California.


ROMEO'S PIZZA: Branning Seeks to Certify Class of Deliver Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Branning, et al.,
On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. Romeo's
Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

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

      "All current and former delivery drivers employed by the
      Defendants Spackler, Smails, and Noonan Pizza Company; The
      Summer of George Pizza Company, LLC; DMTB Pizza Company; I
      Don't Always Eat Pizza Company; Rob Braun; Thomas Fiala; John

      O'Keefe; David Leissinger; The Estate of Michael Hudson; and

      Robert Gligora in the State of Ohio between the date three
      years prior to the filing of the original Complaint and the
      date of final judgment in this matter ("Spackler Rule 23
      Class");"

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

      Rule 23(g); and

   3. permitting the Plaintifffs to send notice of this lawsuit to

      putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).

   4. authorizing them to send notice of the pendency of this
      action to his similarly-situated co-workers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fIgIko
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Plaintiffs and putative class, are:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
                  nspencer@billerkimble.com

RT INC: Faces Camp Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMMIE CAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RT, INC., and JESSIE RUTH CULLUM,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00463-JM (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2021)
brings this collection action complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as Office Manager from June
2011 until February 2021, and as a Manager and Assistant Manager
from February 2021 until May 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees as hourly employee and
non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. However,
despite regularly working more than 40 hours in workweek, the
Defendant failed to properly pay their overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours they worked in excess of 40 per week because the Defendants
failed to include their nondiscretionary bonuses in their regular
rats when calculating their overtime pay. In addition, the
Defendant failed to maintain and keep records of the hours worked
by its employees, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime premiums for all hours worked
over 40 hours in any week, as well as liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

RT, Inc. provides in-home caregiving services throughout Arkansas.
Jessie Ruth Cullum is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner
of RT. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RUMPKE TRANS: Bid to Limit Certification Discovery Junked
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Gambrell, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. Rumpke Transportation
Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-MR (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Michael R. Barrett entered an order that the Defendant's Motion to
Conduct Limited Pre-Conditional Certification Discovery is denied
to the extent that it seeks to conduct limited pre-conditional
certification discovery; and granted to the extend it seeks an
enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion
for Conditional Certification.

The Defendants shall have 21 days from entry of this Order to
respond to Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification says the Court.

On December 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed its First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio Law. In this complaint, the
Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to pay employees overtime
wages. The FLSA claim is brought as a collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a companywide policy of
implementing a meal break deduction for its hourly, non-exempt
welders' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are either never
taken or are interrupted by substantive work duties.

On December 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a "Pre-Discovery Motion
for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)."

The Plaintiff asks this Court to conditionally certify the class
of:

   "All current and former hourly, non-exempt welders of Defendant
   who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in any workweek
   during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and
   continuing through the final disposition of this case."

Rumpke operates as a environmentally friendly waste disposal
solutions and recycling options.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34kfB5f at no extra charge.[CC]

RYAN ROHLF: Sundermann Must Supplement Class Cert. Bid by June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SUNDERMANN v. RYAN
ROHLF, Case No. 4:19-cv-00140-RP-SHL (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
Robert W. Pratt entered an order directing the Plaintiff to
supplement his Motion to Certify Class on or before June 2, 2021,
in light of the allegations contained within the Plaintiff's Second
amended complaint.

The Defendant shall have 14 days in which to respond to Plaintiff's
supplemental filing.

The Court said, "Before the Court are Plaintiff Carl Sundermann's
Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Appoint Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ECF No. 67. The
Defendant Ryan Rohlf has filed a Notice of Non-Resistance to
Plaintiff's Motions. In the Court's Order denying Plaintiff's
Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision, the Court permitted Plaintiff
to replead Count Two, which alleged a violation of the do-not-call
provisions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Thereafter, on March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint repleading Count Two. ECF No. 71. In his Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiff tentatively defines a second class based
on Count Two."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uJLFdD at no extra charge.[CC]

SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order on Garth Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDALL C. GARTH, v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00602-JPC
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Philip Calabrese entered a case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:

   1. Under Local Rule 16.2, the case is assigned to the
      standard track.

   2. Under Local Rule 16.4, the case was not referred to
      Alternative Dispute Resolution at this time.

   3. Currently, the parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of
      a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. section
      636(c).

   4. Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
      Local Rule 16.1, the schedule for this matter will proceed as

      follows:

      -- Initial disclosures:                 May 27, 2021

      -- Motions to amend pleading or         Aug. 13, 2021
         add additional parties:

      -- Motions directed to pleadings:       Nov. 14, 2021

      -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class      Feb. 3, 2022
         Certification expert and Deadline
         to move for Class Certification:

      -- Disclosure of Defendant's Class      March 15, 2022
         Certification expert and
         Deadline to Oppose Class
         Certification:

      -- Deadline to Reply in support of      May 6, 2022
         class certification and exchange
         expert rebuttal reports:

      -- Fact discovery cutoff:               June 14, 2021

   5. The next status conference is scheduled for Monday, February

      28, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. and will be held by phone unless the

      parties request the conference be held in person or over  
      Zoom.

   6. The Parties agreed to abide by the standard protective order

      in Appendix L to the Local Rules. The Court will enter a  
      protective order by separate entry.

   7. The Parties agreed to abide by Appendix K to the Local Rules

      regarding discovery of ESI.

   8. The Parties agree an order under Rule 502(d) of the Federal

      Rules of Evidence is appropriate.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGU1E5 at no extra charge.[CC]

SHEF INC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shef, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Shef, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04749 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 27, 2021).

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

Shef -- https://shef.com/ -- is an operator of an online food
marketplace designed to offer home-cooked dishes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Cullen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DON CULLEN and ELLEN ROSS, on behalf of themselves,
the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH, LLC and SHUTTERFLY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-06040-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, entered an order:

   a. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Cullen's claims
      against Lifetouch for lack of personal jurisdiction under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2);

   b. denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and

   c. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
      for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 12(b)(6), with leave to amend in part and without
      leave to amend in part.

The Plaintiffs filed the action on Aug. 27, 2020.  Shutterfly is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in California.  In
2018, Shutterfly acquired Lifetouch, a Minnesota limited liability
company that is headquartered in Minnesota.  Lifetouch is a
professional photography company that has been taking and selling
school photographs for over 80 years.

Without distinguishing between Shutterfly and Lifetouch, the
Plaintiffs allege that "Defendants provide school picture services
twice per year, in the fall and in the spring.  In the fall,
parents may select a desired photo package before photos are taken,
or may elect not to have their child's portrait taken.  In the
spring, pursuant to their Family Approval Program, the Defendants
take unsolicited school pictures and send them home with the
children.

Parents are instructed to review the photographs and pay for any
photos they choose to keep or return the photos to the school to
presumably be destroyed within days.  Parents are not given the
opportunity to request that their child's picture not be taken or
to opt out of receiving the spring photos.  Parents feel pressure
to pay for these unsolicited photographs or return them to the
school to an unknown fate.  Despite the unsolicited nature of the
photographs, the Defendants maintain that any photographs that are
not returned must be paid for and send parents reminders for
payment.  The Plaintiffs claim that "the purported right of
Defendants to request payment for or return of the unsolicited
photos is invalid and unenforceable under, inter alia, California
law."  According to them, the unsolicited photo packages that are
sent home are free gifts, and the recipients are not obligated to
pay for them or return them.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' conduct gives rise to the
following claims: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code
Section 1750 et seq.; (3) violation of California's false
advertising law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et
seq.; (4) common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (5)
violation of California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (6) violation of Cal. Civil
Code Section 1584.5; and (7) violation of the Postal Reorganization
Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. Section 3009.

The Plaintiffs seek to litigate these claims on behalf of a
nationwide class and several subclasses: A nationwide Class of
individuals who received unsolicited Family Approval Program photo
packages from the Defendants between Aug. 25, 2016 and the date of
preliminary approval; a Purchaser Subclass of Class Members who
purchased any Family Approval photo packages; a California Subclass
of Class members who reside in the state of California; and a
California Purchase Sub-Subclass of Purchaser Subclass Members who
reside in the state of California.

The Defendants move to dismiss Cullen's claim against Lifetouch for
lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiffs' individual claims, and to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Discussion

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Defendants contend that Cullen cannot establish either general
or specific personal jurisdiction over Lifetouch, a Minnesota
company. General personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant's
contacts "are so continuous and systematic as to render [it]
essentially at home in the forum State."  They argue that Lifetouch
does not have sufficient contacts with California to render it "at
home" in California as required for exercise of general personal
jurisdiction.  They also argue that Cullen's claims against
Lifetouch do not arise from Lifetouch's contacts with California.
The Defendants point out that Cullen is a Texas resident, and that
his claims arise from unsolicited Family Approval Program photos
taken at his child's Texas elementary school and sent to his Texas
home.

Mr. Cullen does not attempt to establish general personal
jurisdiction over Lifetouch, but he asserts that Lifetouch's
contacts with California give rise to specific personal
jurisdiction with respect to his claims.

Judge Freeman concludes that Cullen has failed to make a prima
facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand Lifetouch's
motion to dismiss.  This conclusion is consistent with the Court's
ruling in Allen v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 20-CV-02448-BLF, 2020 WL
5517170 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020).  In Allen, a Kansas resident
filed a putative class action asserting consumer claims arising out
of Lifetouch's Family Approval Program.  The Court found that the
Kansas plaintiff's claims against Minnesota-based Lifetouch did not
give rise to personal jurisdiction in California.  Based on the
foregoing, the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss Cullen's
claims against Lifetouch for lack of personal jurisdiction is
granted.

In addition, the sole federal claim in the case is subject to
dismissal without leave to amend.  Under the circumstances, the
Judge declines to exercise the Court's pendent personal
jurisdiction over non-resident Cullen's claims against non-resident
Lifetouch.

Finally, in the event that the Court grants the Defendants' Rule
12(b)(2) motion, the Plaintiffs assert that "Discovery May Be
Warranted."  Their argument on this point consists of a single
sentence: "Plaintiff believes that discovery could demonstrate,
among other things, that Lifetouch relies on Shutterfly in
California to execute the Family Approval Program."  The Plaintiffs
have not explained what specific discovery they wish to take or how
discovery could establish personal jurisdiction over Cullen's
claims against Lifetouch.  Accordingly, their request for
jurisdictional discovery is denied.

II. Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Defendants move to compel arbitration as to the individual
claims of Plaintiffs Cullen and Ross.  They rely on an arbitration
clause contained in the 2020 terms of use ("TOU") located on
Lifetouch's website.  In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that they
never visited Lifetouch's website, let alone agreed to binding
arbitration.  They also argue that even if there were an agreement
to arbitrate, Lifetouch is precluded from enforcing such an
agreement.

With respect to Cullen's claims, Judge Freeman concludes that
Cullen is not the type of non-signatory contemplated by the
equitable estoppel rule, and that the complaint's reliance on
choice-of-law and forum selection provisions chosen unilaterally by
Lifetouch did not confer a direct benefit on Cullen sufficient to
render the arbitration provision applicable to him under an
equitable estoppel theory.  Hence, the motion to compel arbitration
is denied as to Cullen.

With respect to Ross' claims, as stated at the hearing, Judge
Freeman has good vision and was hard-pressed to identify, let alone
read, the language in question on the exhibit provided by the
Defendants.  The subject language is in tiny print, that appears to
be light gray in color, and there is no header or other indicator
that would notify an individual of important contractual terms.  It
may be that the actual envelopes delivered to Ross were larger, but
the Judge is limited to evaluation of the evidence provided by the
Defendants.  The Defendants have the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement was
formed.  The Judge finds that the Defendants have failed to meet
that burden.

In addition to their argument based on the paper envelopes, the
Defendants make the same equitable estoppel argument with respect
to Cullen.  The Judge finds that argument unpersuasive for the same
reasons.  Hence, the motion to compel arbitration is also denied as
to Ross.

III. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

The Defendants seek dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs claims for
failure to state a claim.  As Judge Freeman indicated at the
hearing, it is her view that the complaint is in relatively good
shape, with a few notable exceptions.  First, the complaint
improperly lumps the Defendants together.  This manner of pleading
obfuscates what roles each Defendant played in the alleged harm.
All claims in the complaint are subject to dismissal on this
basis.

Second, the Plaintiffs assert a single federal claim under the
Postal Reorganization Act, which prohibits "the mailing of
unordered merchandise."  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
claim is subject to dismissal because they have not alleged that
the photo packages were mailed.  In opposition, the Plaintiffs
argue that the Act does not require direct mailing, and that it
extends to the facts alleged here, where goods were shipped using
"deputized child couriers."  The Plaintiffs have not cited any
authority supporting their position.  Therefore, the motion to
dismiss is granted as to Claim 7.

Third, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that Cullen and any other non-resident class members
may sue in California under California law.  In opposition, the
Plaintiffs argue that this issue is not appropriate for disposition
at this early stage of the case.  Judge Freeman agrees.

Fourth, the Defendants argue that Claim 6, asserted under
California Civil Code Section 1584.5, fails because the photo
packages were not unsolicited as to Ross and because neither
Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief under the statute.
As the Plaintiffs point out in opposition, it does not appear on
the face of the complaint that Ross solicited the photo packages.
Moreover, nothing in the complaint precludes the Plaintiff from
seeking injunctive relief.  The Defendants' assertion that the
Family Approval Program has been discontinued goes beyond the scope
of what the Court may consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and
therefore does not provide a basis for dismissal of Claim 6.

Fifth, the Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted with
respect to Claim 2 for violation of the CLRA, Claim 3 for violation
of the FAL, Claim 4 for fraud, and Claim 5 for violation of the
UCL.  They contend that the alleged misrepresentations and
omissions underlying these claims have been alleged in only generic
terms that are insufficient to meet the applicable pleading
standards.  Judge Freeman agrees that these claims are inadequately
alleged because she cannot discern from the pleading what allegedly
fraudulent conduct is attributable to each Defendant.

Sixth, the Defendants seek dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs'
claims for equitable relief on the basis that they have not alleged
facts showing that legal remedies are inadequate.  As Judge Freeman
advised the parties at the hearing, she views that issue as
premature and declines to dismiss the claims for equitable relief
at this stage of the proceedings.  Even if she otherwise were
inclined to entertain the issue at the pleading stage based on
Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., No. 20-CV-06304-JST, 2021 WL 1176535
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) and other cases in which district courts
have performed that analysis at the motion to dismiss stage, she
would not do so at this time given that the Plaintiffs must amend
to make clear each Defendant's role in the alleged wrongdoing.

Finally, Judge Freeman finds that the record does not reflect undue
delay by the Plaintiffs or bad faith.  There has been no failure to
cure deficiencies, as the present motion addresses the Plaintiffs'
original complaint.  The case is at an early stage, so amendment
would not unduly prejudice the Defendants.  Finally, while the
Plaintiffs have not given any indication that they could amend
Claim 7, they may well be able to amend to cure the other
deficiencies identified.  Accordingly, leave to amend will be
granted as to all claims except Claim 7.

Conclusion

All claims are dismissed with leave to amend except Claim 7 for
violation of the Postal Reorganization Act, which is dismissed
without leave to amend.  Accordingly, Judge Freeman (i) granted the
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss Cullen's claims against
Lifetouch; (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration; and (iii) granted with leave to amend the Defendants'
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to
all claims except Claim 7 for violation of the Postal
Reorganization Act, as to which the motion is granted without leave
to amend.

The Plaintiffs will file any amended complaint by June 9, 2021.
The Order terminates ECF 19, 20, and 21.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4cmskc6t from Leagle.com.


SILVER FERN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver Fern Farms USA
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Silver Fern Farms USA LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04750 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

Silver Fern Farms -- https://www.silverfernfarms.com/us/ -- markets
and exports meat products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as Dayle Sazonoff, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00773-UNA (D. Del., May 27, 2021).

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

SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- are Accounts
Receivable Management Specialists working with creditors to recover
outstanding consumer credit accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vivian A. Houghton, Esq.
          800 N. West Street, 2nd Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 658-0518
          Email: Vivianhoughton@comcast.net


SIRIUS XM: Sawyer Must File Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 25, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA SAWYER, et al.,
v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00176-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an initial case management
order:

   -- Automatic Disclosures

      To the extent they have not done so already, the parties
      shall exchange the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
      26(a)(1) no later than May 18, 2021.

   -- Written Discovery

      The parties shall serve their initial requests for
production
      of documents and any initial interrogatories (in compliance
      with Local Civ. Rule 33.3(a)) no later than May 21, 2021.

   -- Depositions and Additional Fact Discovery. All remaining fact

      discovery, including depositions, shall be completed no later

      than December 16, 2021.

   -- Expert Discovery

      Disclosure of expert evidence, including the identities and
      written reports of experts, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
      26(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C), shall be made no later than
      December 21, 2021 for plaintiffs and no later than January
      20, 2022 for defendant.

   -- Close of Discovery

      All discovery shall be completed no later than February 23,
      2022.

   -- Motion for Class Certification

      The Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification
      no later than February 25, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SBX2Xt at no extra charge.[CC]

SNAP FINANCE: Extension to File Reply for Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI WESLEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. SNAP FINANCE, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00148-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending the respective deadlines to file
a reply in support of her motion for class certification, and to
file a response to the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony
of her expert, by two weeks due to Plaintiff's counsel's scheduling
conflicts, planned absences and vacations, and work related to
other matters.

SNAP offers financing for homeowners through an extensive dealer
network across Canada.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c2lS9E
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Greene, Esq.
          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: jgreene@aklawfirm.com
                  jscott@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Curtis R. Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Road No. 288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 401-4882
          E-mail: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          Ballard Spahr LLP
          One Utah Center
          201 South Main Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221
          Telephone: (801) 531-3000
          Facsimile: (801) 531-3001
          E-mail: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Jenny N. Perkins, Esq.
          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 665-8500
          Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
          E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com
                  bryce@ballardspahr.com

SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Henderson
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYRONE HENDERSON, SR., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE
SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:20-cv-294-HEH (E.D. Va.), Judge Henry E. Hudson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division, grants the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Oct. 30,
2020, alleging that The Source for Public Data, L.P., Shadowsoft,
Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio, Inc., and Dale Bruce Stringfellow,
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by including
inaccurate criminal information on background check reports
Defendants produced.

The Defendants operate a website, publicdata.com, that allows
customers to search through various databases available via the
site.  They can pull this information into a report.  Plaintiffs
Tyrone Henderson, George O. Harrison, Jr., and Robert McBride
assert that the Defendants purchase, collect, and assemble public
record information into reports, which employers then buy from
Defendants via their website.

Generally, the Defendants obtain their public records from vendors,
state agencies, and courthouses.  The Defendants purportedly "strip
out or suppress all identifying information relating to any
criminal charges."  After these alterations, the Defendants then
use "their own internally created summaries of the charges."  As
the Defendants' customers "ask a general question" such as if
"there are any criminal convictions anywhere that match this
applicant," the Plaintiffs aver that the "Defendants affirmatively
sort, manipulate and infer information to adapt data results to the
requests received."  In sum, the Plaintiffs maintain that the
"Defendants rewrite the court records into their own original
entries into the report."

Each Plaintiff alleges various inaccuracies on the Defendants'
reports as well as other FCRA violations.  They bring a class
action lawsuit, alleging that the Defendants provided numerous
reports for individuals in Virginia that contained false or
inaccurate information.  The Plaintiffs state three claims jointly,
alleging violations of Sections 1681g; 1681k(a); 1681b(b)(1).
McBride brings one claim individually for a violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b).

The matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
In support of their Motion, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' claims are precluded under Section 230.  They allege
that they have satisfied the elements of Section 230 immunity
because they are an interactive computer service and the Plaintiffs
treat them as the publisher of a third-party's content.  Moreover,
they argue that because Section 230 specifically lists several
exemptions and FCRA is not among them, Section 230 applies.  In
response, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants do not satisfy the
requirements for Section 230 immunity and that the immunity should
not apply to the FCRA.

Discussion

A. The Documents Attached to Defendants' Motion Are Not
Incorporated by Reference into the Complaint

The Defendants attached several documents to their Motion with an
affidavit supporting authenticity: first, an example of data
Defendants receive from the Maryland Court system, and second, the
records A+ Student Staffing viewed after a search on Defendants'
website on Aug. 15, 2016.  They allege that these documents are
incorporated by reference into the Second Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiffs object to this evidence, claiming it is not authentic
and hearsay pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Judge Hudson cannot consider either document attached to the Motion
as neither is incorporated by reference into the Second Amended
Complaint.  He says, for a document to be incorporated by reference
into a complaint, there must be explicit language referring to the
documents.  Although the Second Amended Complaint makes several
general references as to how the Defendants obtain criminal history
information and references to sources of public records, and other
agencies from which the Defendants have obtained records, there is
no specific reference to any Maryland court database or system.

Furthermore, there is a generic discussion regarding McBride's
prior attempt to obtain employment as a surveyor, a background
check report his potential employer utilized, and mention of some
information in the report, but there is no reference that the
employer is A+ Student Staffing nor that the report at issue was
generated on Aug. 16, 2016.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not
relied on these documents for their truthfulness, and indeed,
object to validity of these documents.

Therefore, the Judge finds that these documents are not
incorporated by reference.

B. Section 230 Applies to Defendants

The Plaintiffs' sole support for their argument that Section 230
generally cannot apply to the FCRA is an unpublished case from the
Central District of California -- Liberi v. Taitz, No. SACV
11-0485, 2011 WL 13315691 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011).  After finding
the plaintiffs' claims barred under the FCRA and the California
equivalent, the Liberi court further reasoned that the claims would
also be precluded by Section 230 immunity.  The Plaintiffs argue
that this case signifies that Section 230 and the FCRA are mutually
exclusive because the Liberi court analyzed Section 230 separately
from the FCRA.

Judge Hudson finds the Plaintiffs' argument, based upon inferences
and assumptions from dicta in an unpublished Central District of
California case, unpersuasive, particularly when the language of
the statute and Fourth Circuit precedent are clear.  He says, it is
evident that, although Section 230 can apply to FCRA claims, the
Court must consider whether the Defendants are entitled to immunity
under Section 230.  There are three requirements to successfully
assert Section 230 immunity: (1) a defendant is an interactive
computer service; (2) the content is created by an information
content provider; and (3) the defendant is alleged to be the
creator of the content.

Based on the facts at hand, the Judge holds that the Defendants
have satisfied all three elements.  First, the Defendants meet the
definition of an interactive computer service.  Second, the
Defendants are not information content providers as they do not
produce the content of the reports at issue in the litigation.
Finally, although the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
manipulate and sort the content in a background check report, there
no explicit allegation that Defendants materially contribute to or
create the content themselves.

Conclusion

In sum, Judge Hudson finds that Section 230 immunity can apply to
FCRA claims and the Defendants qualify for the immunity.
Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.
An appropriate Order will accompany the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtrcfuh6 from Leagle.com.


SPARK NETWORKS: Cyber Security Related Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks SE said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit related to the 2020 security incident disclosed by
Zoosk, has been stayed.

On July 22, 2020, a putative class action was filed against Spark
Networks SE and Zoosk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by individuals claiming to be Zoosk users
whose information was affected by the 2020 security incident
disclosed by Zoosk.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, asserts that by reason of
the Zoosk security incident Spark and Zoosk violated the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other statutory and common-law
obligations.

Based on these assertions, the complaint seeks statutory damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily
withdrew their statutory damage claims under the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

On January 30, 2021, the district court granted in part, and denied
in part, Zoosk's motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint
for failure to state a claim and held in abeyance the Company's
motion to dismiss itself on jurisdictional grounds and for failure
to state a claim.

The court granted plaintiffs limited jurisdictional discovery as to
the Company and has allowed a common-law claim to go forward as to
Zoosk. Zoosk has answered the portion of the complaint that asserts
the one remaining common-law claim by denying its material
allegations and asserting a number of affirmative defenses.

The case is currently stayed at least through June 12, 2021 pending
resolution of pandemic-related challenges in completing the
jurisdictional discovery.

Assuming the stay is lifted on June 12, the case is scheduled for
trial commencing September 12, 2022.

Separately, a group of lawyers that is different from those who
filed the putative class action filed 77 separate arbitration
demands against Zoosk in the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation
Services, Inc. ("JAMS") arbitration forum. Zoosk has objected that
neither JAMS nor any arbitrator appointed by JAMS has authority to
arbitrate any of these claims. JAMS has nonetheless determined to
commence arbitration proceedings in regard to one of the 77
arbitration claims filed to date and has initiated the process of
appointing an arbitrator for that one claim.

Spark Networks SE operates online dating sites and mobile
applications. It focuses on catering professionals and
highly-educated singles with serious relationship intentions in
North America and other international markets. The company operates
its dating platforms under the EliteSingles, SilverSingles, JDate,
Christian Mingle, eDarling, JSwipe, and Attractive World brands.
The company is headquartered in Berlin, Germany.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Second Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH v. THE
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed second motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Judge Tigar says that although Plaintiff has remedied some of the
defects identified in the Court’s prior order denying approval,
others remain. By attempting to settle her own individual claim in
exchange for an incentive award, the Plaintiff creates a potential
conflict between herself and the putative class. The Court will not
approve a settlement that bestows a service award in exchange for a
release. The Court also notes again that, absent compelling
circumstances, it is unlikely to look favorably on an award greater
than $5,000.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Louangamath brings
wage and hour claims against Defendant The Spectranetics
Corporation, a medical device manufacturer headquartered in
Colorado and incorporated in Delaware.

Claims are brought on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who
worked at the Defendant's California facilities at any time between
April 20, 2014 and the date that final judgment is entered in this
action.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide legally
compliant meal and rest periods, compensate employees for all hours
worked at the correct rate of pay, reimburse employees for
expenses, and provide accurate written wage statements.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i38tC6 at no extra charge.[CC]

SPRINGFIELD, MA: Asks Court to Amend May 5, 2021 Order in O'Neill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURA O'NEILL, as
administrator Of the Estate of Madelyn E. Linsenmeir, v. CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD, MOISES ZANAZANIAN, REMINGTON MCNABB, SHEILA RODRIGUEZ,
HAMPDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, And JOHN/JANE DOES NOS. 1-5,
Case No. 3:20-cv-30036-MGM (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order amending the May 5, 2021 order by certifying that
so much of the order that requires the case against the City of
Springfield to be bifurcated and tried before the remaining issues
is appropriate for interlocutory review under section 1292(b).

Specifically, the Defendants ask that the Court certify that the
designated section of the order involves a controlling question of
law, which appears to be a matter of first impression, and as to
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.

Springfield is a city in western Massachusetts. Beside the
Connecticut River, Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame
commemorates the sport in a striking building. Collections at the
Springfield Museums include American paintings and sculpture,
scientific exhibits and Asian art.

A copy of the Court's order the Defendants' motion dated May 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wG0vTE
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys of the Defendants City of Springfield, Moises
Zanazanian, Remington McNabb and Sheila Rodriguez, By their
attorneys, are:

          Lisa C. DeSousa, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD LAW DEPARTMENT
          36 Court Street, Room 210
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 787-6085
          Facsimile: (413) 787-6173
          E-mail: ldesousa@springfieldcityhall.com

               - and -

          Kevin B. Coyle, Esq.
          1299 Page Boulevard
          Springfield, MA 01104
          Telephone: (413) 787-1524
          E-mail: attycoyle@aol.com

               - and -

          John K. Vigliotti, Esq.
          REARDON, JOYCE & AKERSON, P.C.
          4 Lancaster Terrace
          Worcester, MA 01609
          Telephone: (508)754-7285
          Facsimile: (508) 754-7220
          E-mail: jvigliotti@rja-law.com

SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION: Giron Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN PABLO GIRON, v.
SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00626-DSC (W.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification and court-authorized
      notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. requiring the Defendant Square A to provide to Plaintiff
      within 14 days of the Court's Order on this motion, the full

      names, date(s) of employment, job title(s), last known
      addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of
      birth of all putative collective action members to allow
      Plaintiff to distribute the approved notice to those putative

      members of the statutory classes; and

   3. approving the proposed Notice of Collective Action lawsuit
      and the proposed Consent to Become Party Plaintiff and
      approve a 60 day opt-in period for potential Plaintiffs to
      submit the Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form.

Square A is a residential and light commercial masonry company,
based in Charlotte North Carolina.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wHQYeI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn F. Abernethy, Esq.
          THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          43933) 141 Providence Road, Suite 210
          Chapel Hill, NC 27514
          Telephone: (919) 251-6008
          Facsimile: (919) 869-2079
          E-mail: kabernethy@thenoblelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael C. Harman, Esq.
          HARMAN LAW PLLC
          16507-B Northcross Dr.,
          Huntersville, NC 28078
          Office: (704) 885-5550
          Facsimile: (704) 885-5551
          E-mail: michael@harmanlawnc.com

SYMETRA LIFE: Fails to Pay Claims Examiners' OT, Blier Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BLIER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00692 (D. Wash., May 26, 2021) brings this class
and collective complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from February 16, 2016
to December 18, 2018 as a non-managerial employee in the position
of Claims Examiner/Claims Examination Employee to process
disability benefits claims within contractual time frames.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated current
and former Claims Examiners routinely work over 40 hours per week
throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant did not compensate them for their lawfully earned
overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for al hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime compensation, pre-
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Symetra Life Insurance Company is a claims administrator that
administers and processes disability benefits claims on behalf of
its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Hanley, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Ave., Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Tel: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: hanley@sgb-law.com

                - and –

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Tel: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

                - and –

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Tel: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
                  jack@siegellawgroup.biz
  
                - and –

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (281) 572-0727
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

T-MOBILE USA: Chetwood et al., Seeks $2MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA CHETWOOD, SANDRA
CASTELLON-GONZALEZ, PAUL ROSE, JAIRO MARQUEZ, SAMANTHA STEPHENS,
RICHARD NEDBALEK, AND WHITE, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00458-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(c) and section 216(b) 6 of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA);

   2. preliminarily certifying the proposed settlement class;

   3. approving the proposed class notice and forms;

   4. setting the deadlines for filing elections not to participate

      and objections to the Settlement; and

   5. scheduling a final approval hearing.

This is an FLSA/state law wage-and-hour hybrid collective/class
action. The Plaintiffs and approximately 6,800 putative class
members are hourly Customer Service Representatives employed by
T-Mobile at its call centers throughout the country.

In this unopposed Motion, the Plaintiffs request preliminary
approval of a $2,000,000 collective/class action settlement.

The Defendant does not oppose this Motion.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class
dated May 18, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3wKfZpO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.

TARGET CORPORATION: Bid for Class Certification Continued to June 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aisha Bowen, et al. v.
Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02587-JGB-MRW (C.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a Sur-
      Reply;

   2. continuing the Motion for Class Certification to June 7,
      2021;

On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. On March 8, 2021, Defendant opposed. The Plaintiffs
replied on April 19, 2021.

On April 21, 2021, Defendant filed the Motion, which seeks to
strike the Steiner and Cohen Declarations, or, in the alternative,
requests leave to file a Sur-Reply. The Defendant argues,
correctly, that the Steiner and Cohen Declarations are new, non-
rebuttal evidence that Plaintiffs could have presented with their
moving papers.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The
eighth-largest retailer in the United States.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 12, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bTUZos at no
extra charge.[CC]


TD AMERITRADE: Bartle Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Annette Mackey Bartle, on
behalf of herself and other members of the putative class, v. TD
Ameritrade Holdings Corp., Case No. 4:20-cv-166 (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification;

   2. appointing Annette Mackey Bartle as the Class
Representative;
      and

   3. appointing The Law Office of Jared A. Rose as Class Counsel.

Ms. Bartle claims for class action treatment pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff had
a brokerage account with Scottrade, and Scottrade's contract with
the Plaintiff promised that if Scottrade "pledged, repledged,
hypothecated or re-hypothecated" her securities, any losses
resulting from those activities would not accrue to her account.

Some of Plaintiff's securities were "pledged, repledged,
hypothecated or re-hypothecated" by Scottrade, and as a result, she
received substitute payments for certain securities instead of
qualified dividends, causing losses to accrue in her account.
Scottrade violated this same contractual provision for thousands of
other customers as well, causing losses to accrue in their accounts
in the same manner, making the case well suited to class
treatment.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff motion to certify class
dated May 19, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2R8mGmo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jared A. Rose, Esq .
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JARED A. ROSE
          919 West 47th Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816.221.4335
          Facsimile: 816.873.5406
          E-mail: jared@roselawkc.com

TERRA TECH: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Tech Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative nationwide class action suit entitled, Stanley, et al.
v Terra Tech Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8:21-cv00022, is
pending.

On January 6, 2021, a putative, nationwide class action for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"),
captioned as Stanley, et al. v Terra Tech Corp., et al., Civil
Action No. 8:21-cv00022, was filed against Terra Tech and MediFarm
LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In the TCPA Action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the
TCPA by sending text messages to them and other persons using an
automated telephone dialing system without consent.

Plaintiffs sought on behalf of themselves and other purportedly
similarly situated-persons, statutory damages and an unspecified
amount of actual damages for each alleged violation, declaratory
and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 5, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TCPA
Action in its entirety.

Terra Tech Corp. operates as a vertically integrated
cannabis-focused agriculture company. The Company was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


THERMO TECH: Bid for FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the Class, v. THERMO TECH
MECHANICAL, INC., GOWKARRAN BUDHU, and SHANTI BUDHU, Case No.
1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of
Fair Labor Standards Act collective and for court facilitation of
notice.

Thermo Tech specializes in sales, installation and maintenance of a
wide range of heating and air conditioning equipment.

A copy of the Plaintiff motion to certify class dated May 19, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIXWQS at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Attorney for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, are:

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

THESAN USA: Zhejiang Files Amended Bid for Default Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZHEJIANG INKO SOLAR CO.,
LTD., v. THESAN USA CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-24346-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a default
judgment against defendant Thesan USA.

Zhejiang is a solar module manufacturer.

Thesan USA engages in the design and implementation of
technological solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvT6k3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Mazzola, Esq.
          MAZZOLA LINDSTROM, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
          New York, New York 10019
          Telephone: (646) 250-6666
          E-mail: jean-claude@mazzolalindstrom.com

TOGETHER CREDIT: Settlement Deal in Chambers Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON CHAMBERS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TOGETHER CREDIT
UNION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00842-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen P. McGlynn entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Settlement.

Judge McGlynn says that the action and all released claims asserted
in it are dismissed with prejudice. No other attorney fees or costs
to any of the Parties will be awarded other than as provided for in
the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Parties are directed to take
the necessary steps to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement provides, in exchange for a release of the
Defendant, for Defendant to pay $525,000 into a Settlement Fund for
the benefit of the Class.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c4ji3g at no extra charge.[CC]




U.S. BANCORP: Pension Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Bid Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Thorne, Sonja
Lindley, Pamela Kaberline, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. U.S. Bancorp, the Employee Benefits
Committee, John/Jane Does 1-5, Case No. 0:18-cv-03405-PAM-KMM (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class of:

   "all participants and beneficiaries of the Bank Pension Plan,
   who began receiving pension benefits on or after December 14,
   2012, and whose monthly benefits were reduced by an [ECF]
   prescribed in Part B of the Plan under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule

   23(b)(2)."

The Court said, "Because some class members were not injured, the
class is not similarly situated such that inconsistent
adjudications are a concern. Further, putative class members may
not opt out of a such a class, which is problematic because some of
those class members were not injured in the first instance. The
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that certification under Rule
23(b)(1)(A) is suitable. The Plaintiffs alternatively seek to
certify their class under Rule 23(b)(2). 2 A Rule 23(b)(2) class is
appropriate when a defendant has "acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the class as a whole." "The key to the (b)(2) class is
the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy
warranted -- the notion that the conduct is such that it can be
enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members
or as to none of them." Again, because Plaintiffs do not
demonstrate that all class members receive benefits that violate
ERISA, the requested relief would not apply to the entire class.

The case involves participants in the U.S. Bank Pension Plan who
elected to receive their benefits as an annuity before reaching the
Plan’s anticipated retirement age of 65. Beginning in 2002,
Plaintiffs accrued retirement benefits under the Plan's "Final
Average Pay Formula." Although the Plan anticipates a retirement
age of 65, those who receive benefits under the Final Average Pay
Formula can retire as early as age 55. When a participant elects to
collect their retirement benefits before age 65, known the "Early
Commencement Factor" ("ECF"), the Plan’s terms require a
reduction of their monthly benefit, expressed as a percentage of
the normal benefit that the participant would have received had
they retired at 65.

The Plaintiffs contend that the ECFs result in benefits that are
not actuarially equivalent to the retirement benefit they would
have received at age 65, in violation of the Early Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Simply put, the Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are paying
retirees who retire before the age of 65 an insufficient percentage
of their annuity benefit based on unreasonable actuarial
calculations. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that 3,344
individuals had their early retirement in Part B of the Plan
reduced by the ECFs. Ultimately, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief in the form of a "retroactive Plan Amendment,"
which would provide class members the greater of either an
actuarily equivalent benefit to their age-65 ECF or their current
benefit.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fWV4ZS at no
extra charge.[CC]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Irving Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & RETIREMENT FUND,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; TRAVIS KALANICK,
Defendants-Appellees, MORGAN STANLEY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.;
NEW RIDERS LP, Intervenors, Case No. 19-16667 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's
order dismissing the operative complaint for failure to state a
claim.

The case concerns allegations of securities fraud against Uber, a
technology startup known for its ridesharing application, and
Travis Kalanick, cofounder and former CEO of Uber.  After Uber's
founding in 2009, its valuation soared, with some investors
assigning a valuation as high as $68 billion by mid-2016.  Between
June 2014 and May 2016, Kalanick and Uber completed four preferred
stock offerings, raising more than $10 billion in additional
capital through limited partnerships and other entities.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, a retirement fund for
firefighters based in Irving, Texas, acquired Uber securities
through one of these offerings on Feb. 16, 2016.  Throughout 2017,
several alleged corporate scandals surfaced, and by early 2018,
investors estimated a nearly 30% decline in Uber's valuation.

Irving filed a putative class action against Uber and Kalanick
alleging one claim of securities fraud under California
Corporations Code sections 25400(d) and 25500.  The Second Amended
Complaint alleges that Uber and Kalanick made false and misleading
statements and omissions about Uber and its operations to induce
the purchase of billions of dollars of Uber securities.  These
statements and omissions were allegedly disseminated "through
information in the offering memoranda and by making numerous public
statements."  Uber and Kalanick allegedly misled investors by
concealing material risks to their business, including illegal
business practices, which allegedly allowed them to market and sell
Uber securities at inflated prices.  The SAC asserts that when
these business practices came to light, Uber's valuation declined,
reducing the value of Irving's -- and other class members' --
securities and their actual and anticipated investment returns by
billions of dollars.

The SAC divides Uber's alleged misrepresentations into six
categories, five of which correspond directly to each of the 2017
corporate scandals: (1) government regulation and "Greyball," (2)
data security, (3) competition and the "Hell" program, (4)
self-driving cars and trade secrets litigation, and (5) corporate
culture and sexual harassment allegations. The sixth category
concerns misrepresentations about the general risks to Uber's
business from negative publicity and other events that threatened
to curtail its rapid growth.

The district court dismissed the SAC for failure to state a claim
without granting leave to amend.  It assumed that the heightened
pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") applied to the
case.  The district court applied cases interpreting section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b),
noting that the parties had relied on such cases.  It then
concluded that Irving did not adequately allege false or misleading
representations or loss causation.  The appeal followed.

Irving contends that the district court erred by applying the
federal standard for loss causation rather than the "less-rigid
state law standard." Under Irving's interpretation, it need only
show that the proposed class members purchased securities that were
overvalued -- or inflated -- at the time of the offerings.  By
Irving's account, the class members' damages arose at the moment
they purchased overinflated securities, and no subsequent
corrective disclosures or public price declines were needed.

The Ninth Circuit disagrees.  It holds that the district court did
not err in looking to federal cases interpreting loss causation for
claims brought under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The loss causation requirement applies to all claims arising under
the Securities Exchange Act.  Irving's cited case law in the Ninth
Circuit's view does not support its argument that mere inflation is
enough to show loss causation under California law.

Because the parties have not pointed to California law directly
addressing the issue, the Ninth Circuit turns to the federal
standard for loss causation.  It nonetheless emphasizes that,
although federal precedent is unusually persuasive, California law
still governs claims brought pursuant to sections 25400 and 25500.

Irving next contends that the district court misapplied federal law
when it rejected Irving's loss causation theory.

Looking to the federal loss causation regime as persuasive
authority, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Irving did not
adequately allege loss causation.  Irving's loss causation theory
lumps together more than 60 alleged misstatements, which Irving
associates with at least eight purported corporate scandals that
took place throughout the course of a year, and Irving concludes
that the disclosure of these scandals resulted in a year-long
decline in Uber's valuation.  But Irving's allegations fail to link
Uber's reduced valuation to any particular scandal or
misstatement.

Irving also acknowledges that the SAC pleads a
"revelation-of-the-fraud theory" but contends that it should be
allowed to plead in the alternative.  But Irving identifies its
alternative theory as "the truism" that, under California law,
losses may arise the moment investors purchase inflated securities.
The Ninth Circuit has already rejected that contention.

Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Irving did
not plausibly allege that Uber and Kalanick's alleged misstatements
caused its damages.  Accordingly, it does not reach the other
elements of Irving's claim or the other arguments advanced by the
parties.  The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dhx2xrw from Leagle.com.

Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued) and Luke O. Brooks
-- lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San
Diego, California; Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, in San Francisco, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- (argued), Andra Greene --
agreene@irell.com -- and Michael D. Harbour -- mharbour@irell.com
-- Irell & Manella LLP, in Newport Beach, California, for
Defendant-Appellee Uber Technologies, Inc.

Sarah M. Harris -- sharris@wc.com -- (argued), Joseph G.
Petrosinelli -- jpetrosinelli@wc.com -- Eden Schiffmann --
eschiffmann@wc.com -- Harrison L. Marino, and Kimberly Broecker --
kbroecker@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, in Washington, D.C.;
Walter F. Brown and James N. Kramer, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, in San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee Travis
Kalanick.


UNICO AMERICAN: Unit Faces Anchors & Whales Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Crusader Insurance
Company, a company subsidiary is facing a putative class action
suit initiated by Anchors & Whales LLC et al.

On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader Insurance
Company in a putative class action entitled Anchors & Whales LLC et
al. v. Crusader Insurance Company, Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999).  

The action alleges that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business
interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to the
COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders that limited or
halted operations of bars and restaurants.  

The action further alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in
denying the claims, and it seeks as damages the amounts allegedly
due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys'
fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages.  

The lawsuit alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in
California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business
income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more
Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the
property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader.  

The Company intends to contest the allegations and to contest
certification of any class. Due date for the Company's answer is
May 20, 2021.

Unico American Corporation  is an insurance holding company.
Currently, the Company's subsidiary Crusader Insurance Company
underwrites commercial property and casualty insurance, the
Company's subsidiaries Unifax Insurance Systems, Inc. and American
Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) provide marketing and various
underwriting support services related to property, casualty, health
and life insurance, the Company's subsidiary American Acceptance
Company (AAC) provides insurance premium financing, and the
Company's subsidiary Insurance Club, Inc., dba AAQHC, an
Administrator provides membership association services. The company
is based in Calabasas, California.


UNITED VALET: Ascencio Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Ascencio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED VALET PARKING, INC. a California Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV00903 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 17, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act,
Labor Code stemming from the Defendant's failure to pay all wages
due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result of
the Defendant's policy of improperly paying its non-exempt hourly
employees; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and failure
to pay wages upon ending employment of terminated or resigned
employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, have consistently
maintained and enforced against Aggrieved Employees the unlawful
practices and policies. The Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were
made to work beyond the 8th hour of their shift without receiving
the legally mandated overtime and double overtime rates of pay. The
Plaintiff and his coworkers worked up to 13 hours per shift and the
Defendant failed to pay them at the legally mandated rates of pay
in violation of the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. As a
result of the Defendant' failure to provide Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees with all wages earned, also failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements
listing the accurate gross wages earned, total hours worked, net
wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates and the corresponding
number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a valet attendant
from 2013 through March 17, 2020.

UNITED VALET PARKING, INC., is a valet parking service provider, a
California Corporation doing business in the state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jake D. Finkel, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL
          3470 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 213.787.7411
          Facsimile: 323.916.0521
          Email: jake@lawfinkel.com
                 alex@lawfinkel.com


UNUM GROUP: Class of Specialists Conditionally Certified in Loomis
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY ANN LOOMIS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UNUM
GROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-CV-251 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Curtis L. Collier entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's motion for oral argument;

   2. denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file a
sur-reply;

   3. granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification, and the Court will conditionally certify the
      following collective class:

      "All salaried Disability Benefits Specialists who worked for
      Unum Group Corporation in the Short-Term Disability, Long-
      Term Disability, or Individual Disability Insurance
      departments, regardless of level (i.e., Core, Senior, or
      Lead), at any time since three years before May 13, 2021, and

      whose job duties included processing disability claims using

      the guidelines in Unum's Benefit Center Claims Manual;"

      "Disability Benefits Specialists" include the following job
      titles: Disability Benefit(s) Specialist, Disability
      Specialist, Benefit(s) Specialist, Disability Claims
      Examiner, Disability Benefit(s) Claim Analyst, and Life Event

      Specialist;

   4. directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with a list

      of the potential opt-in plaintiffs in an electronic and
      importable format within twenty-eight days of entry of the
      accompanying Order, and this list shall include the following

      information: name, dates of employment, job title(s) held,
      last known physical address, and last known personal email
      address;

   5. directing the parties to confer and to submit proposed
      agreed notice and consent forms within twenty-eight days of
      entry of the accompanying Order. If the parties cannot agree,

      Plaintiff shall file her proposed form within twenty-eight
      days of entry of the accompanying Order, Defendant may file
      its specific objections within seven days of Plaintiff's
      filing, and Plaintiff may respond to Defendant's objections
      within five days; and

   6. directing that the notice shall include information regarding

      opt-in plaintiffs' possible responsibility for costs; (2) the

      notice shall be sent only by mail and email; (3) Plaintiff
      may ask the Court for permission to send notice to particular

      potential opt-in plaintiffs by text message only if notice by

      both mail and email is returned as undeliverable; and (4)
      Plaintiff may not send any reminder notices.

Unum Group is a Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Fortune 500 insurance
company formerly known as UnumProvident. Unum Group was created by
the 1999 merger of Unum Corporation and The Provident Companies and
comprises four distinct businesses -- Unum US, Unum UK, Unum Poland
and Colonial Life.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RR2aqK at no extra charge.[CC]

VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Must Serve Class Cert. Report by July 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01108 (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   -- The Plaintiff shall serve its class certification expert
      report by July 30, 2021;

   -- Fact discovery shall begin on July 2, 2021;

   -- The Defendants shall serve their class certification expert
      rebuttal by September 17, 2019;

   -- The Plaintiff shall serve its class certification expert
      reply and its class certification motion by October 29,
2021;

   -- The Defendant shall serve its class certification opposition

      by December 1, 2021; and

   -- The plaintiff shall serve its reply and the parties shall
      file the fully briefed motion by December 29, 2021. The
      parties shall file a status letter by July 7, 2021 setting
      forth which remaining deadlines they have agreed on and which

      deadlines still require the Court's attention. The Court
      shall hold a telephone conference on July 13, 2021 at 11:00
      a.m.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes --
Securities/Commodities/Exchange.

Vanda is a biopharmaceutical company.[CC]

VELODYNE LIDAR: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit related to pay minimum and overtime wages,
final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods
and rest breaks.

On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed
to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and
other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks.

The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified
and is seeking to certify the action as a class action.

The plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a
claim pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act. The
First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the plaintiff
seeks to recover.

Velodyne's response to the First Amended Complaint was filed on
November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning
discovery concerning class certification issues. The Court has
scheduled a Case Management Conference for May 26, 2021.

The Company believes the allegations in the actions are without
merit, and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.


VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Putative Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces
putative securities class action suits.

On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a
complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand
Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne
Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01486-SI.

The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.

The complaint alleges that purported class members have suffered
losses.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between November 9,
2020 and February 19, 2021.

On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled Reese v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed
against the Company, Mr. Gopalan and Mr. Hamer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, based on
allegations similar to those in the earlier class action and
seeking recovery on behalf of the same putative class.

On March 19, 2021, another putative class action entitled Nick v.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 4:21-cv-01950-JST, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company, Mr. Gopalan, Mr. Hamer, two
current or former directors, and three other entities.

The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations,
controls and prospects and seeks, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
July 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021.

The Company believes that the putative class actions are likely to
be consolidated and proceed as a single litigation.

The Company believes the allegations in the actions are without
merit, and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.


VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------
Venus Concept Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend class actions related to its Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

Between May 23, 2018 and June 11, 2019, four putative shareholder
class actions complaints were filed against Restoration Robotics,
Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its
venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Two of these complaints, Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et
al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.,
No. 19CIV08173 (together, the State Actions), were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The other two complaints, Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF (together, the Federal
Actions), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and assert claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the Restoration
Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1,
2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in
connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

In the State Actions, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with the
other defendants, successfully demurred to the initial Wong
complaint for failure to state a claim and secured a stay of both
cases based on the forum selection clause contained in its Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which designates the
federal district courts as the exclusive forums for claims arising
under the Securities Act.

However, on December 19, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery in
Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg held that exclusive federal forum
provisions are invalid under Delaware law. Based on this ruling,
the San Mateo Superior Court lifted its stay of State Actions on
December 10, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs in the State Actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal securities
laws, alleging again that, among other things, the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the
Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 24, 2020, the Company demurred to the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery
Court's decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg and held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law. On
March 30, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss based
on its federal forum selection clause. A hearing on the Company's
demurrer and renewed motion to dismiss was held on June 12, 2020.
On September 1, 2020, the court granted the renewed motion to
dismiss based on the Company's forum selection clause as to the
Company and individual defendants, but not as to the venture
capital and underwriter defendants.

On September 22, 2020, the Court entered a judgement of dismissal
as to the Company and the individual defendants. On November 23,
2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order
granting the renewed motion to dismiss. That appeal is pending.

In the Federal Actions, which have been consolidated under the
caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, Lead Plaintiff Eduardo Guerrini filed
his consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal
securities laws on November 30, 2018. The consolidated amended
complaint alleges again that, among other things, Restoration
Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1,
2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in
connection with the IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein.

On January 29, 2019, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with certain
of its former officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On
October 18, 2019, the District Court granted Restoration Robotics,
Inc. motion to dismiss as to all but two allegedly false or
misleading statements contained in the Company's Prospectus. On
December 9, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated
amended complaint denying the falsity of these statements.

On May 29, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company elected not to oppose, and on July
29, 2020, the court certified a class of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's IPO.

On February 22, 2021, the District Court granted the parties' joint
stipulation to stay all pending deadlines on the basis that the
parties had reached a settlement in principle for all claims in the
Federal Actions. On April 22, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed his
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. A hearing
on that motion is scheduled for May 27, 2021.

In addition to the State and Federal Actions, on July 11, 2019, a
verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Mason v. Rhodes, No. 5:19-cv-03997-NC.

The complaint alleges that certain of Restoration Robotics' former
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, have been
unjustly enriched and violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the IPO and Restoration
Robotics' 2018 proxy statement. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, declaratory relief, other equitable relief and attorneys'
fees and costs. On August 21, 2019, the District Court granted the
parties' joint stipulation to stay the Mason action during the
pendency of the Federal Actions. On March 16, 2021, the District
Court granted the parties' further stipulation to stay the Mason
action during the pendency of the Federal Action, and the case
remains stayed.

Venus Concept Inc. (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.) is a
global medical technology company that develops, commercializes,
and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and
hair restoration technologies and related services. The Company's
systems have been designed on a cost-effective, proprietary and
flexible platform that enables it to expand beyond the aesthetic
industry's traditional markets of dermatology and plastic surgery,
and into non-traditional markets, including family and general
practitioners and aesthetic medical spas. The company was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.

VERO BEACH, FL: Seeks to Extend Response Time to Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH TAIG, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH,
CHIEF DAVID CURREY in his individual capacity, CAPTAIN KEVIN MARTIN
(RETIRED) in his individual capacity, LIEUTENANT JOHN PEDERSEN in
his individual capacity, DETECTIVE PHIL HUDDY in his individual
capacity, DETECTIVE SEAN CROWLEY in his individual capacity, and
DETECTIVE MIKE GASBARRINI in his individual capacity, Case No.
9:21-cv-80391-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending the time for them to file their response
to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action Certification,
requesting a 14-day extension of time until Friday, June 4, 2021.

Defendant Martin submits that there is good cause for this Motion
and that this Motion is not interposed for purposes of undue delay,
harassment, or annoyance, or to alter, negate, or otherwise affect
the Court's effective disposition of this case.

The Defendants say that they cannot meet this deadline and file
meaningful, non-prejudicial papers in response to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Action Certification. To the contrary, the
additional time will allow Defendant to properly and fully evaluate
Plaintiff's Motion and file the appropriate response. In addition,
the granting of this Motion will not prejudice any party. Finally,
as a matter of consistency, the granting of this Motion will allow
all Defendants, including those anticipated to be represented by
conflict counsel to file their responses by the same date.

The Plaintiff filed his 328 page Class Action Complaint on February
23, 2021. The Plaintiff's lawsuit arises from law enforcement
investigations into illegal activity at the East Spa in 2018 and
2019. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges two counts
against the Defendants collectively asserting violation of the
Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges a count for search and seizure and due process violations
against all the Defendants.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34yu3Xq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William E. Lawton, Esq.
          Gail C. Bradford, Esq.
          Alyssa J. Flood, Esq.
          DEAN, RINGERS, MORGAN & LAWTON, P.A.
          Post Office Box 2928
          Orlando, FL 32802-2928
          Telephone: (407) 422-4310
          Facsimile: 407-648-0233
          E-mail: wlawton@drml-law.com
                  gbradford@drml-law.com
                  aflood@drml-law.com

VYSTAR CORP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in LaChapelle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vystar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the counsel in the
class action suit initiated by Robert LaChapelle has filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Complaint with
prejudice.

On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans
Furniture, the Company's majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including
Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior
Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay
pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the
Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, Section 1A), and the
Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 Sections 148 and
150).

Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him
and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis
overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or
premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours
they worked on Sundays.

The parties settled with the named Plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle
and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de
minimus amount which was paid in March 2021.

Plaintiffs' counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice. The settlement was included
in operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2020.

However, after settlement, three additional former employees made
similar claims and the Company is reviewing the matter.

Vystar Corporation creates natural rubber latex. The Company's
product is used in an extensive range of products including
balloons, textiles, footwear and clothing (threads), adhesives,
foams, furniture, carpet, paints, coatings, protective equipment,
sporting equipment, and especially health care products such as
condoms, surgical and exam gloves.


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM’S
WEST,INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order the following briefing schedule
on Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

                       Event                          Date

        -- Motion for Class Certification           June 7, 2021

        -- Opposition to Motion for                July 19, 2021
           Class Certification

        -- Reply ISO to Motion for                 Aug. 11, 2021
           Class Certification

        -- Hearing on Motion for                   Sept. 3, 2021
           Class Certification

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ftyZD2 at no extra charge.[CC]

WASHINGTON DOC: Plaintiffs Win Provisional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2,
JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, and all persons similarly
situated, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and
STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, in
his official capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-05059-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class
      Certification;

   2. certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

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

      who are currently or were formerly incarcerated by the
      Washington State Department of Corrections;"

      -- Current Inmate Subclass :

         "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary,
         gender nonconforming, and/or intersex in records in the
         possession of the Washington State Department of
         Corrections who are currently incarcerated in Washington
         State prisons;" and

      -- Former Inmate Subclass:

         "All individuals identified as transgender, non-binary,
         gender nonconforming, and/or intersex in records in the
         possession of the Washington State Department of
         Corrections who were incarcerated in Washington State
         prisons at any time."

   4. apppointing John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2,
      and Jane Doe 3 as the Class Representatives for the certified

      Class and Subclasses;

   5. appointing the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
      Foundation; MacDonald Hoague & Bayless; Disability Rights
      Washington; and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as Class Counsel
      for the Certified Class and Subclasses;

   6. directing the class counsel within 14 days from the date of
      this Order, to serve and file a proposed "Notice" to members

      of the certified class and subclasses and suggest a method by

      which this should be accomplished and at whose expense;

   7. giving the Defendants 14 days from service of the proposed
      "Notice" to serve and file any objections to the same; and

   8. giving Class counsel seven days from service of any objection

      to serve and file a reply to the same.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tirkie at no extra charge.[CC]

WEST COVINA: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE BUSTILLOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST COVINA CORPORATE FITNESS,
INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04433
(C.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted a prerecorded
voice message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in 1877 on or about February 20, 2021 in an attempt to promote its
business, goods and services. The Plaintiff asserts that she never
provided the Defendant her prior express written consent to be
contacted by prerecorded message.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been
harmed in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience and
disruption of their daily life, the suit alleges.

Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and treble
damages, as well as an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
all unsolicited call activity, and prohibiting the Defendant from
using prerecorded messages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

West Covina Corporate Fitness, Inc. owns and operates a gym in West
Covina, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Tel: (310) 477-5575
          E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com

                - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

WEST ROAD: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calhoun v. West Road Pizza
Stop, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-12661 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order granting motion to extend
deadline to file motion for class certification to August 12,
2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]


WEST VIRGINIA: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Fain v. WVDHHR Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER FAIN; ZACHARY MARTELL; and BRIAN McNEMAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet
Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human
Resources; CYNTHIA BEANE, in her official capacity as Commissioner
for the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services; WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, BUREAU FOR MEDICAL
SERVICES; TED CHEATHAM, in his official capacity as Director of the
West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency; and THE HEALTH
PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-0740
(S.D.W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division,
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order:

   a. denying Defendant Ted Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss the
      Complaint;

   b. denying Defendants William Crouch, Cynthia Beane, and the
      West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources,
      Bureau for Medical Services' ("WVDHHR Defendants") Motion
      for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action
      Complaint; and

   c. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file
      Sur-Reply.

The putative Class Action Complaint asserts several claims, each of
which is rooted in the same theory: That the Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiffs by denying coverage for
gender-confirming health care.  The Complaint defines
"gender-confirming care" as health care which "includes, but is not
limited to, counseling, hormone replacement therapy, and surgical
care for the treatment of gender dysphoria -- the clinically
significant distress that can result from the dissonance between an
individual's gender identity and sex assigned at birth."  According
to the Complaint, these treatments are denied to transgender
individuals despite being available to cisgender individuals.

Based on this overarching theory, the Complaint raises two types of
individual and class action claims: (1) those brought by Medicaid
recipients against the WVDHHR Defendants and (2) those brought by
state employees and their dependents against Ted Cheatham, the
Director of the West Virginia Public Employee Insurance
Administration, and The Health Plan, a health maintenance
organization permitted to offer health plans to state employees
through PEIA.

Discussion

I. WVDHHR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

On Jan. 11, 2021, WVDHHR Defendants moved for partial dismissal,
challenging Fain's claim for compensatory damages under the
Eleventh Amendment and the sufficiency of Fain's class action
allegations.  On Feb. 2, 2021, they filed a second motion to
dismiss, this time challenging standing and ripeness, as well as
Fain's ability to represent the proposed class.  With the filing of
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in
Opposition to WVDHHR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on April 5,
2021, the motions became ripe for review.

First, Judge Chambers finds that West Virginia waived its immunity
from suit under Section 1557 by accepting federal assistance under
the ACA, as provided by Section 1003's Residual Clause.  WVDHHR's
Motion is denied as to immunity.  Second, the Judge holds that
WVDHHR's policy acts as a barrier to Fain's surgery in every
instance and renders alternative grounds for denial irrelevant.  He
rejects the argument that Fain's request would not be futile
because it could be denied on grounds other than the Exclusion and
concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a ripe claim
for which they have standing to bring.

Finally, the Plaintiffs neither assert a negligence claim, nor do
they seek compensatory damages on behalf of the class.
Additionally, their Equal Protection, ACA, and Medicaid Act claims
do not require evidence of individual "duty" or "breach."  These
claims are purely legal and require little to no fact development.
Having failed to identify any ground upon which the Parties will be
required to make particularized and individualized factual
findings, WVDHHR's argument must be rejected.

For these reasons, Judge Chambers denies WVDHHR's Motion for
Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint and Motion
to Dismiss.

II. Defendant Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss

On Jan. 11, 2021, Defendant Cheatham moved for dismissal, arguing
that McNemar and Martell lack standing and have failed to state an
Equal Protection Clause claim.

Judge Chambers finds that dismissal is unwarranted on both grounds.
First, the Plaintiffs' allegations are plausible because Cheatham
is statutorily responsible for administering PEIA, including
overseeing "provider negotiations, provider contracting and
payment, designation of covered and noncovered services, and
offering of additional coverage options or cost containment
incentives."  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' have plausibly alleged
traceability.

In addition, Cheatham provides evidence that he does not have
control over existing policies under the PEIA's agreement with The
Health Plan.  However, even if the Court were to accept this
assertion, Cheatham has not shown that the other proposed remedies
are inadequate.  Given that Cheatham is tasked with "designation of
covered and noncovered services" and "offering additional coverage
options," he is statutorily authorized to grant Plaintiffs access
to gender-confirming care.  Therefore, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' have sufficiently alleged that their injuries are
redressable.

Second, the Judge will not entertain Cheatham's fact-based
arguments at this stage and denies Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss.
Cheatham's last argument is that the Plaintiffs failed to state an
Equal Protection claim upon which relief may be granted because the
PEIA policy passes heightened scrutiny.  As the Plaintiffs argue in
their Response, Cheatham's argument is improper because it relies
on facts outside of the Complaint.

Conclusion

For the he reasons stated, Judge Chambers denies Defendant
Cheatham's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and WVDHHR Defendants'
Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint
and Motion to Dismiss.  He also grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to file Sur-Reply.  The Clerk is directed to send a copy of
the Opinion to the counsel of Record and any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/em53skxz from
Leagle.com.


WESTCO CHEMICALS: Court Moots Draney Pending Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Draney v. Westco
Chemicals, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order denying
as moot the pending Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Summary
Judgment in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement, indicating
that the case has settled in its entirety.

According to the Civil Minutes -- General, By May 28, 2021,
Plaintiffs shall file a properly noticed motion for approval of the
class action settlement agreement. Failure to comply with this
Order may result in dismissal of the action for lack of
prosecution. All other dates and deadlines in this action are
vacated and taken off calendar.

A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated May 10, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vqReyp at no
extra charge.[CC]


WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW
(C.D. Cal.).

In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (California District Court) brought on behalf of former
Noteholders and Unitholders against Comerica Bank.

It is comprised of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4,
2018 and April 26, 2018.

The five lawsuits were consolidated, Lead Class Counsel was
appointed, and Lead Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on September 19, 2019.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted claims for aiding
and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty (Count 2), negligence (Count 3), and violations of
California's unfair competition law (Count 4).

On November 1, 2019, Comerica moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of
subject matter jurisdiction). With respect to Count 1 (aiding and
abetting fraud) and Count 2 (aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty), Comerica argued that the Class Plaintiffs'
allegations did not demonstrate that Comerica had actual knowledge
of the underlying fraud and breach of fiduciary duty that Comerica
is alleged to have aided and abetted; with respect to Count 3
(negligence), Comerica argued that there is no duty of care owed to
non-customers of Comerica; and with respect to Count 4 (California
Unfair Competition Law), Comerica argued that a claim for unfair
competition fails when there is no actual knowledge of fraud or
breach of fiduciary duty and no duty owed. In addition, Comerica
argued that all causes of action failed to state a claim for the
additional reason that Comerica's filing or non-filing of a
Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under federal law cannot support
any of the causes of action, and that the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because all of the causes of action belong to
the Trust such that the Class Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
them.

On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Comerica's motion to dismiss.  The Court denied
Comerica's request to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on the ground that the
allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint sufficiently
alleged that Comerica had the requisite knowledge of the underlying
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.  The Court granted Comerica's
request to dismiss Count 3 on the ground that the allegations of
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint did not sufficiently allege
a duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica. On Count 4, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent it relied on a
failure to file a SAR (which claim the Court found was preempted by
federal law, which prohibits disclosure of a SAR), but denied the
motion to dismiss to the extent the complaint relied on violations
arising from non-SAR-related conduct, and the Court granted the
class leave to amend the complaint.  The Court also denied
Comerica's request to dismiss based on Comerica's allegations that
the class lacked standing and that the Trust cannot be a member of
a class, finding instead that the class has plausibly alleged
standing to sue, and that the question of whether the Trust can be
a class member did not need to be answered at this stage.

On August 26, 2020, the putative class filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserted claims for
aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty (Count 2), and violations of California's unfair
competition law (Count 3).  Comerica answered the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 16, 2020.  

Discovery is now proceeding in the litigation, and on April 16,
2021 the plaintiffs moved to certify a class.  The class
certification motion remains pending.  

The Court has entered a schedule setting the following dates and
deadlines: (i) August 3, 2021 as the fact discovery cut-off; (ii)
August 20, 2021 as the deadline to file dispositive motions; (iii)
September 7, 2021 as the deadline for initial expert disclosures
and reports; (iv) October 22, 2021 as the expert discovery cut-off;
(v) December 14, 2021 as the final pretrial conference; and (vi)
January 11, 2022 as the start of what is estimated to be a 10-day
jury trial.

The Liquidation Trustee asserts that he is a member of the putative
class and Comerica disputes that assertion.

Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC (the "Wind-Down Entity") were
formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to
prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate
and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed
administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including
professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in
accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to
Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and
after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority
claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California.


XL FLEET: Suh and Kumar Putative Class Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
XL Fleet Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend two putative class action suits entitled, Suh v. XL Fleet
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02002 and Kumar v. XL Fleet Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02171.

On March 8, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
federal district court for the Southern District of New York (Suh
v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02002) against the
Company and certain of its current officers and directors.

On March 12, 2021, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in federal district court for the Southern District of New
York (Kumar v. XL Fleet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02171)
against the Company and certain of its current officers and
directors.

Both the Suh Complaint and the Kumar Complaint allege that certain
public statements made by the defendants between October 2, 2020
and March 2, 2021 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company believes that the allegations asserted in the Suh
Complaint and Kumar Complaint are without merit, and the Company
intends to vigorously defend both lawsuits.

XL Fleet said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company will be successful. At this time, the Company is unable to
estimate potential losses, if any, related to either lawsuit."

XL Fleet Corp. is a leading provider of fleet electrification
solutions for commercial vehicles in North America, with over 4,30
electrified powertrain systems sold and driven over 140 million
miles by over 200 fleets as of December 31, 2020. The company's
vision is to become the world leader in fleet electrification
solutions, with a mission of accelerating the adoption of fleet
electrification systems through cost-effective, customer-tailored
and comprehensive solutions. The company is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


XO GLOBAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XO Global LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. XO Global LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02996 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021).

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

XOJET -- https://flyxo.com/ -- is an American on-demand private jet
charter company based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with a 24/7
operations center at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport and sales
offices located in New York City, New York, Newport, California,
and Palm Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


XPRESSPA GROUP: Finalization of Collins Settlement Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
XpresSpa Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the parties in Kyle
Collins v. Spa Products Import & Distribution Co., LLC et al., are
currently in the process of preparing/finalizing settlement
papers.

This is a combined class action and California Private Attorney's
General Act (PAGA) action.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for
claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to
provide rest breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate
wage statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties
of $100 per employee per pay period per violation.

There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the
litigation class.  

The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020, however, due to
COVID-19 the parties subsequently stayed all proceedings.

The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021, and the parties
reached a settlement in principle.

The parties are currently in the process of preparing/finalizing
settlement papers.

XpresSpa Group, Inc., a health and wellness services company,
provides spa services to travelers at airports. The Company was
formerly known as FORM Holdings Corp. and changed its name to
XpresSpa Group, Inc. in January 2018. XpresSpa Group, Inc. is
headquartered in New York, New York.


YWL USA: Attorney's Fee Award Reduced to $17K in Wan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LU WAN, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. YWL USA INC. d/b/a
BUDDHA ASIAN BISTRO SUSHI HIBACHI STEAK HOUSE, AI QIN CHEN, and
JANE DOE, Case No. 7:18-cv-10334-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Cathy Seibel entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's
application for attorneys' fees and costs.

Judge Seibel says that the requested fee award of $61,174.50 is
reduced to $17,703.90. She also awarded $1,491.73 in costs.
Accordingly, the total award of fees and costs is $19,195.63.
Judgment will be entered in a separate order. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 12, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fpf5Jw at no
extra charge.[CC]



                            *********

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 ***