/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210610.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 110

                            Headlines

3033 GROUP: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reynoso Suit Alleges
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Discloses Final Settlement of Class Action Suit
AIR METHODS: Murphy Sues Over Illegal Medical Air Transpo Charges
ALL MERCHANT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
AMDOCS LIMITED: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 8 Deadline

AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought
APARTMENT LIST: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: N.D. California Certifies Damages Class in Williams Suit
ATERIAN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
BISSELL HOMECARE: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California

BOOK PEOPLE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline

CIMAREX ENERGY: Hayhook Sues Over Royalty Underpayments
CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Outbreak
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Suit Seeks Billions in Wake of Bribery Scandal
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Blanton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CREDIT COLLECTION: Becker Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Stay Motion for Class Certification Briefing
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers File Suit Over Upgradeable Laptop
DENALI STAFFING: Initial Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Cody Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Entwistle & Cappucci Discloses Class Action
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Discloses Class Action
FAMILY FOOT: Filing of Preliminary Class Cert. Bid Due October 1
FIRST TRANSIT: Settlement Agreement in Alkady Suit Gets Final Nod
FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of August 2 Deadline

FUELCO ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Segovia FLSA Suit Denied
GEICO CASUALTY: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Destination Charges
GLOBAL CREDIT: Lapinski Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN: Grantham Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Landsdale Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal
HONEY POT COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOUSTON WIRE: Omni Cable Merger Deal Lacks Info, Parshall Claims
HUB INT'L: Ct. Certifies California Class & Wage Statement Subclass
HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Wins Bid for Class Certification

ILLINOIS: Ex Legislator Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit
J.B. HUNT: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Tossed
J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification
JAGUAR LAND: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due July 23
JAPAN INN DORAL: Lopez Slams Illegal Termination Over Sick Leave

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Claims in Potts' 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed
JUKA INNOVATIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEMON CREEK: Fuel Spill Class Action Suit Gets Second Go-Ahead
LIFEMD INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUIS MILUSNIC: Seeks to Dissolve July 14-Issued Prelim. Injunction

LOUISIANA: Bid to Dismiss Plaisance Class Suit Junked
MIDLAND CREDIT: Levine Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
MILKY WAY INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MINERAL HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MINUTE MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification
NCAA: Baker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Racanelli Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEC NETWORKS: Accused of Failing to Safeguard PHI and PII
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Reichert Says

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Savage Sues Over Sale to Microsoft
OHIO: Bids to Dismiss & for Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Nixed
OKONITE COMPANY: Court OKs Parrish Bid for Class Certification
OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
PETROBRAS COMPENSATION: Dutch Court Allows Class Action to Proceed

PFA INSURANCE: June 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners Slam Delay in Gun License Release
PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PIZZA ON STONE: Oct. 1 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
PORSCHE CARS: Court OKs Extension of Class Certification Deadlines

PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations
PROMPT NURSING: Judge Awards $1.56 Million in Class Action Lawsuit
PURECYCLE TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURELY ELIZABETH: Meraz Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees

ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Order to 1st Circuit
ROMEO POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Garcia Slams Negligent Storage of Patient Data
SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline

SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Owners Face Class Suit Over Unsafe Conditions
SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Property Owners Hit With New City Orders
STATE AUTO: Planet Sub Appeals Ruling in Insurance Class Action
SUMMER WWK: Film Production Crew Members Seek to Certify Class
TESLA INC: Seeking to Transfer Suit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes

TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Court Tosses 10 Class Suits, Including Nguyen
UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL: Judge Signs Class Action Certification Order
UNIFIED SECURITY: Facing COVID-19 Class Action Over Liquidation
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Scott Suit
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Slams Share Price Drop

VOLVO GROUP: Court Tosses FLSA Collective Action Certification Bid
WASHINGTON PRIME: Schall Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline
WAWA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Conditional Class Status Nixed
WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Third Amendment Complaint Tossed
[*] Cartel Follow-On Litigation Under New Dutch Class Action System


                            *********

3033 GROUP: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Reynoso Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY REYNOSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3033 GROUP, LLC, d/b/a SHOOTERS WATERFRONT
Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-61131-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay federal minimum wages
for certain hours worked to all of its servers in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the minimum wage
requirements under federal law by requiring servers to purchase
uniforms, parking passes, and other various tools of the trade out
of their own pocket and then use these items each day of their
employment. The Defendant allegedly failed to ever reimburse the
servers for the initial cost and upkeep of their uniform and
parking pass which resulted in an unlawful kickback to the
Defendant and drove Plaintiff's and all similarly situated
employees' wages below the acceptable rate during their first and
subsequent weeks of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as server from approximately
March 21, 2021 until May 3, 2021.

3033 Group, LLC, d/b/a Shooters Waterfront is a seafood restaurant
located on the intracoastal waterway in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.  
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN
           RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

AETERNA ZENTARIS: Discloses Final Settlement of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. (NASDAQ: AEZS) (TSX: AEZS) ("Aeterna" or the
"Company"), a specialty biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing a diversified portfolio of pharmaceutical and
diagnostic products, today announced the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey has given final approval of the
settlement from the previously disclosed class-action lawsuit
against the Company. The settlement payment will be funded entirely
by the Company's insurers. Pending no action taken during the
30-day appeal period, this matter will be considered fully and
finally settled.

The previously disclosed class-action lawsuit alleged that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with certain public statements made between August 30,
2011, and November 6, 2014, regarding the safety and efficacy of
Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin) and the prospects for the approval of
the Company's New Drug Application for the product by the FDA.
Although Aeterna denies all of the alleged claims and all
liability, it agrees that the settlement is appropriate to resolve
the disputes, avoid further costs of litigation and avoid further
distractions to management.

                   About Aeterna Zentaris

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a specialty biopharmaceutical company
developing and commercializing a diversified portfolio of
pharmaceutical and diagnostic products focused on areas of
significant unmet medical need. The Company's lead product,
macimorelin (Macrilen™), is the first and only U.S. FDA and
European Commission approved oral test indicated for the diagnosis
of adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD). The Company is
leveraging the clinical success and compelling safety profile of
macimorelin to develop it for the diagnosis of childhood-onset
growth hormone deficiency (CGHD) in collaboration with Novo
Nordisk.

Aeterna Zentaris is dedicated to the development of therapeutic
assets and has recently taken steps to establish a growing
preclinical pipeline to potentially address unmet medical needs
across a number of indications, including neuromyelitis optica
spectrum disorder (NMOSD), hypoparathyroidism and amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS; Lou Gehrig's disease). Additionally, the
Company is developing an oral prophylactic bacterial vaccine
against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.[GN]

AIR METHODS: Murphy Sues Over Illegal Medical Air Transpo Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MURPHY, Individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, and ROCKY
MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-10896-KAR (D.
Mass., May 28, 2021) seeks a declaration of rights, obligations and
relationship between Plaintiff, the Class and the Defendants
relating to Defendants' claimed entitlement to payment for its
emergency air transportation services.

The case involves the alleged intersection of the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1976's preemption provision, with the
Defendants' practice of charging patients for emergency, medical
air transportation rates when no express or implied-in-fact
contract exists between them and the patient for such
transportation.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants' sole business is the
transportation of critically injured patients at the request of
healthcare provider seeking transfers under the Emergency Medical
Transportation and Labor Act. There is no contract between the
patient and Defendants prior to transfer, regarding the terms or
price of that transfer, and no agreement between the certifying
healthcare provider and the patient to contract for the terms and
conditions of transfer, in particular no agreement to bind the
patients to any contract with Defendants, the suit added.

Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to between 70,000 and 100,000 patients every year. It
operates in 48 states and Haiti, with air medical as its primary
business focus.

Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC provides air medical
transportation services utilizing a fleet of helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Soule, Esq.,
          PO Box 1307
          Burlington, VT 05402-1307
          Telephone: (802) 658-2311
          E-mail: ssoule@PFClaw.com

               - and -

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          Daryan P. Martinez, Esq.
          EDWARD L. WHITE P.C.
          829 East 33rd Street
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 810-8188
          Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
                  daryan@edwhitelaw.com

ALL MERCHANT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Merchant Funding
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All Merchant Funding
LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them Case No.
2:21-cv-04607 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2021).

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

All Merchant Funding -- https://allmerchantfunding.com/ -- provide
businesses with lines of credit, invoice factoring, merchant cash
advance, small business loans, cash flow loans, business loans,
factoring, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


AMDOCS LIMITED: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Amdocs Limited ("Amdocs" or
"the Company") (NASDAQ:DOX) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Amdocs
securities between December 13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/dox.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and
liquidity, while understating its debt; (2) Amdocs concealed its
large borrowing; (3) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its
North American business was stable, that business was actually
deteriorating annually, in part because the Company was losing AT&T
as a customer; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/dox or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Amdocs you
have until June 8, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY and JEFF ABERIN (a
married couple), DON AWTREY, CHARLES BURGESS, JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI
Assigned to: Hon. Jon S. Tigar LOU, and JOY MATZA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate and ask the Court to issue an order setting the following
briefing schedule and page limits for the Impact of Olean Briefing:


   -- AHM's opening brief:      June 15, 2021 (15 pages)

   -- Plaintiffs' opposition:   July 8, 2021 (15 pages)

   -- AHM's reply:              July 22, 2021 (10 pages)

A copy of Parties motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ptt1ph at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant American Honda, are:

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          Amir M. Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 285-8330
          Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
          E-mail: mmallow@shb.com
                  rstraus@shb.com
                  anassihi@shb.com

APARTMENT LIST: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apartment List, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Apartment List, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04958 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Apartment List -- https://www.apartmentlist.com/ -- is a free
service that helps you find the perfect apartment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: N.D. California Certifies Damages Class in Williams Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA M. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-04700-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Named Plaintiffs Andrea Williams and James Stewart bring the
putative class action against Defendant Apple for breach of
contract on Aug. 12, 2019.  Apple is a corporation incorporated
under the laws of California and has its principal place of
business in Cupertino, California.  Apple's cloud storage service
is called iCloud that allows subscribers to utilize certain
Internet services, including storing their personal content (such
as contacts, calendars, photos, notes, reminders, documents, app
data, and iCloud email) and making it accessible on their
compatible devices and computers, and certain location based
services.

According to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
owners of Apple devices are granted up to 5 GB of iCloud storage
for free.  If an Apple device user wishes to store more than 5 GB
of data on the cloud through iCloud, then that user must subscribe
to iCloud's paid service.  The Plaintiffs allege that in order to
subscribe to iCloud, a user must agree to the iCloud Terms of
Service Agreement."

The Named Plaintiffs sue Apple on behalf of United States iCloud
subscribers (excluding Apple, its employees, and its directors) who
paid for an Apple iCloud subscription sometime during the class
period Sept. 16, 2015 through Oct. 31, 2018.  The FAC alleges that
Apple failed to inform Williams and Stewart that their data was
being stored on "non-Apple remote servers and facilities" despite
alleged assurances to the contrary.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they "bargained for,
agreed, and paid to have Apple -- an entity they trusted—store
their data."  According to the FAC, however, Apple's
representations were false.  "Apple lacked the facilities needed to
readily provide the cloud storage space being sold to class members
through iCloud."  "Unable to provide the cloud storage space, Apple
breached its iCloud agreement with its subscribers and had these
users' data stored not by Apple on Apple facilities, but instead
turned the users' digital files to other entities, like Amazon and
Microsoft, for them to store on their facilities."

The FAC alleges that "had Apple disclosed that, contrary to its
contractual representation, Apple was not the provider of the cloud
storage," putative class members "would not have subscribed to
Apple's iCloud service or would have not agreed to pay as much as
[they] did for the service."  The FAC claims that other companies,
such as Microsoft and Google, offer cheaper cloud storage services
than Apple and that Apple's "price premium" harmed putative class
members who would have otherwise utilized these cheaper cloud
storage alternatives.

The Plaintiffs' original complaint, like the operative FAC, alleged
three causes of action against Apple: (1) breach of contract, (2)
violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3)
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  They
allege that Apple agreed to be the "provider of the iCloud Service"
and to store putative class members' content on Apple's servers.
Yet Apple allegedly breached this promise because "storage was
provided by non-Apple third parties with whom neither the Named
Plaintiffs nor the class members had bargained."  The Plaintiffs
also claimed that Apple violated the FAL and UCL by making the
following "false and misleading" claim: "Apple was the provider of
the iCloud cloud storage service and the class members' data would
be stored on the cloud by Apple."

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Apple's motion to dismiss the original complaint.  Specifically, it
granted with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss (1) the
Plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief; and (2) the Plaintiffs'
FAL and UCL claims.  The Court denied Apple's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.

On April 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC.  Apple
moved to dismiss the FAC on May 11, 2020.  On Nov. 17, 2020, the
Court granted in part and denied in part Apple's motion to dismiss
the FAC.  Specifically, it dismissed the Plaintiffs' FAL and UCL
claims with prejudice but did not dismiss their prayer for
injunctive relief.  Accordingly, only the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim for damages and injunctive relief remains.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their instant motion for
class certification.  On Jan. 29, 2021, Apple filed its opposition
to the instant motion.  On Feb. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed
their reply supporting class certification and on Feb. 22, 2021,
Apple filed a sur-reply.  On Feb. 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a
response to Apple's sur-reply.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class
("Damages Class") and a Rule 23(b)(2) class ("Injunctive Class").

The Damages Class comprises: All persons in the United States who
paid for a subscription to iCloud at any time during the period
Sept. 16, 2015 until Oct. 31, 2018.

The Injunctive Class comprises: All persons meeting the foregoing
Rule 23(b)(3) class definition who are current paying subscribers
of iCloud in the United States as of the date the Court enters its
order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

For both classes, only one claim is at issue: breach of contract
under California law.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that
Apple breached the iCloud Agreement (a standardized form contract)
by storing their data on third-party servers rather than Apple's
servers.  In other words, they claim that Apple promised "fully
in-house" iCloud storage, not "partly outsourced" storage.

Apple opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on six
grounds.  First, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs cannot prove
predominance because adjudicating breach of contract would require
individualized inquiries into (1) the class members' interpretation
of the iCloud Agreement; and (2) whether the class members' data
was in fact outsourced.  Second, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs
cannot prove predominance because adjudicating injury would require
individualized inquiry into purchases on iCloud family plans.
Third, it argues that the Named Plaintiffs -- Andrea Williams and
James Stewart -- are atypical and inadequate class
representatives.

Fourth, Apple argues that the affirmative defenses of waiver and
laches defeat predominance.  Fifth, it argues that the Plaintiffs'
model of classwide damages fails to satisfy Comcast Corporation v.
Behrend, which requires the Plaintiffs to "establish that damages
are capable of measurement on a classwide basis."  Lastly, Apple
argues that the Plaintiffs have waived their injunctive class
because the Plaintiffs' Motion does not address the standards
governing the elements required to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class
nor apply the record of the case to show how such elements are
met.

Judge Koh examines Apple's six arguments.  She agrees in part with
Apple's first, third, and last arguments.  The Judge finds that
those arguments identify the Plaintiffs' problems with common proof
during part of the class period, Williams' inadequacy as a class
representative, and the Plaintiffs' failure to support
certification of the Injunctive Class.  The Judge disagrees with
Apple's other arguments.  Ultimately, she (1) certifies the Damages
Class but limits it to the class period Sept. 16, 2015 to Jan. 31,
2016; (2) holds that Stewart is the sole class representative; and
(3) denies certification of the Injunctive Class.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted in part and denied in part.

Judge Koh certifies the following class: "All persons in the United
States who paid for a subscription to iCloud at any time during the
period Sept. 16, 2015 to Jan. 31, 2016.  Excluded from this Class
definition are all employees, officers, or agents of Defendant
Apple Inc.  Also excluded from this Class definition are all
judicial officers assigned to this case as well as their staff and
immediate families."

The Judge denies certification for the putative class period
spanning Feb. 1, 2016 to Oct. 31, 2018 and denies the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2).  Lastly,
she orders that Named Plaintiff James Stewart will serve as the
sole class representative.  Named Plaintiff Andrea Williams is an
inadequate class representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/58ypwbma from Leagle.com.


ATERIAN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) investors
that acquired shares between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021.
Investors have until July 12, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that Aterian made misleading and
false statements to the market. Aterian experienced a steep decline
in its organic growth. Aterian's recent acquisitions were flawed
assets that were overpaid for. Customer interest in Aterian's AI
software was low. Aterian used paid reviews rebate programs in
order to bolster their product offerings. Aterian's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages,
when the market learned the truth about Aterian.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

BISSELL HOMECARE: Figueroa Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alex Figueroa, Gina Marie Urizar, Bonafacio
Burdios, Individually and On Behalf Of Others Similarly Situated v.
Bissell Homecare, Inc., Case No. 21STCV13581 was removed from the
Los Angeles, Spring Street, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04645-FMO-GJS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Bissell Inc., also known as Bissell Homecare --
https://www.bissell.com/ -- is an American privately owned vacuum
cleaner and floor care product manufacturing corporation
headquartered in Walker, Michigan in Greater Grand Rapids.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
          1100 West Town And Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (800) 500-0101
          Fax: (800) 500-0301
          Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 North Mall Drive Suite R108
          St George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryan J Weintrop, Esq.
          Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 229-9900
          Fax: (310) 229-9901
          Email: bjweintrop@venable.com
                 dsilverman@venable.com


BOOK PEOPLE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Book People Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Book People Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04968 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

BookPeople -- https://www.bookpeople.com/ -- is Texas' largest
independent bookstore, has been a staple in Austin's Community of
Books since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCXI) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action is pending and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Nov. 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021

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

Contact An Attorney Now:CCXI@hbsslaw.com

844-916-0895

ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The lawsuit focuses on ChemoCentryx's statements about its new drug
application ("NDA") for its vasculitis drug candidate Avacopan.

Beginning on Nov. 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx touted positive topline
data from its Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE trial demonstrating
Avacopan's superiority over standard of care in ANCA-associated
vasculitis and that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.
This and subsequent positive announcements sent the price of CCXI
soaring.

The complaint alleges ChemoCentryx concealed that: (1) the trial's
study design was flawed; (2) data from the trial raised serious
safety concerns; and (3) these issues presented a substantial
concern about the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA.

On May 4, 2021, the truth emerged when the FDA announced it had
identified several areas of concern, including "uncertainties about
the interpretability of the data and the clinical meaningfulness of
these results." In addition, the document took issue with the
complex trial design and the lack of long-term safety data.

This news drove the price of ChemoCentryx shares crashing over 45%
lower on May 4, 2021, wiping out as much as $1.5 billion of the
company's market capitalization.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving ChemoCentryx misled
investors about Avacopan's efficacy and safety," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

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

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

                         About Hagens Berman

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

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV) ("CCIV") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
CCIV on behalf of those who purchased or acquired CCIV securities
between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021

Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/churchill-capital-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill

Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453

Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435

Toll free (844) 887-9500

CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose
acquisition company. Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid"), is
an American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of
2020, Lucid's first car, Lucid Air, is in development.

On Monday, February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement
between CCIV and Lucid was announced. CCIV and Lucid's transaction
equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. However, at 6:22 p.m.
that same night, Ed Ludlow of Bloomberg News reported that Peter
Rawlinson, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer, announced that
production of its debut car will be delayed until at least the
second half of 2021, with no definite date set for delivery of an
actual vehicle.

Following this news, CCIV's stock price fell from a close of $57.37
per share on February 22, 2021, to a close of $35.21 per share on
February 23, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of CCIV's
business, operations and financial condition.

CCIV investors may, no later than July 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Churchill Capital Corp IV. (NYSE: CCIV)
investors that acquired shares between January 11, 2021 and
February 22, 2021. Investors have until July 6, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that Churchill Capital made
misleading and false statements to the market. Lucid Motors was not
ready to produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected
2021 production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle
production target touted in the period before its merger with
Churchill Capital. Churchill Capital's public statements were
materially misleading and false throughout the class period.
Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about
Churchill Capital.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 6,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Churchill
Capital Corp IV ("Churchill Capital" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCIV)
for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January
11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lucid Motors ("Lucid") was not ready to
produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021
production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle
production target touted in the period before its merger with
Churchill Capital. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Churchill
Capital, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


CIMAREX ENERGY: Hayhook Sues Over Royalty Underpayments
-------------------------------------------------------
Hayhook, Ltd. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cimarex Energy Co., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00237, (N.D. Okla., June 1, 2021) seeks to remedy Cimarex's
systematic breach of express duties under certain leases to pay
royalties to Hayhook for natural gas.

A relevant portion of the royalty clause of the lease, which
provides for payment of royalty on gas used "off" the lease
includes the royalties to be paid on gas, including casing-head gas
or other gaseous substance, produced from said land and sold or
used off the premises or used in the manufacture of gasoline or
other product therefrom, the market value at the well of one-eighth
of the gas sold or used, provided that on gas sold at the wells the
royalty shall be one-eighth of the amount realized from such sale.
This gas is typically used off the lease premises to power the
equipment that performs compression, dehydration, treatment, or
processing services, or to pay in-kind for off-lease services by
allowing the midstream service provider to keep all or part of the
gas or its constituents for later sale on its own account. The
on-lease free use clause of the lease provides that the lessee
shall have free use of oil, gas, coal, wood and water from said
land, except water from lessor's wells, for all operations
hereunder, and the royalty on oil, gas and coal shall be computed
after deducting any so used.

Cimarex allegedly concealed the systematic underpayment of royalty
by falsely representing on the check stubs provided monthly to
Hayhook that it was paying royalty on the full volume and value of
production from its wells.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jo Lynn Jeter, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Woodward, Esq.
     W. Caleb Jones, Esq.
     NORMAN WOHLGEMUTH, LLP
     3200 Mid-Continent Tower
     401 S. Boston Avenue
     Tulsa, OK 74103
     Tel: (918) 583-7571
     Fax: (918) 584-7847
     Email: JJeter@nwlawok.com
            RWoodward@nwlawok.com
            WJones@nwlawok.com

            - and -

     Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
     Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
     SHARP LAW, LLP
     5301 West 75th Street
     Prairie Village, KS 66208
     Tel: (913) 901-0505
     Fax: (913) 901-0419
     Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
            rhudson@midwest-law.com

CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
ncpolicywatch.com reports that a new class-action lawsuit brought
against the Citadel Salisbury nursing home claims that chronic
understaffing endangered the health and safety of its residents.
The Citadel Salisbury was the site of the largest COVID-19 outbreak
in a North Carolina congregant care facility early in the pandemic.


New owners started running the Citadel Salisbury on Feb. 1, 2020.
The lawsuit says that the owners failed to correct existing
problems at the facility when they bought it, and some services got
worse. Limited liability corporations that hold the license for and
operate the nursing home are named as defendants in the federal
suit, as are Simcha Hyman and Naftali Zanziper, the LLC's owners.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of residents and family members
who said residents were not given their medicines, had to cope with
ignored calls for assistance and "terrible food" -- far from the
"five-star" service residents and family members were promised by
Accordius Health. Zanziper and Hyman control Accordius Health, a
limited liability company that manages the nursing home.


Attorney John Hughes of Wallace & Graham

"What the families say is, we understand that in the end our
Medicaid dollar can get so much care, but at least be honest with
us, be truthful with us," said John Hughes, an attorney with
Wallace & Graham, who brought the suit. The lawsuit claims breach
of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of
fiduciary duty, and infliction of severe emotional distress.

One of the plaintiffs in the Citadel Salisbury litigation, Sybil
Rummage, did not regularly receive medications she needed for her
heart and for pain and, after she tested positive for COVID-19, had
trouble getting the proper medication to treat it, according to
court documents.

Court documents filed in a 2020 suit against the facility include
quotes from the deposition of a Citadel Salisbury administrator in
which she agreed there were times when Rummage did not get the
correct doses of her heart medication at the right time.

In February 2020, Rummage's daughter said that her mother was not
getting the right size pull-up brief she needed, according to
claims in this year's suit, and that Rummage saw residents walking
around with no undergarments. Rummage developed a bedsore because
she was wearing the wrong type and size of undergarment.

Rummage's care is paid for by Medicaid; facilities and
undergarments are covered under Medicaid reimbursement. But
Rummage's daughter had to reach into her own pocket to purchase the
right product for her mother, the lawsuit says.

A spotty performance record

In 2008, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
established a 5-star rating system that the public can access at
www.medicare.gov/care-compare/ to compare nursing homes. The
Citadel Salisbury has no rating because it is part of a special
program for facilities with "a history of serious quality issues,"
that require more frequent inspections.

Citadel Salisbury has been inspected six times since January 2020,
according to the investigative news site ProPublica, and was fined
twice last year.

Limited liability corporations that Hyman and Zanziper control
operate 36 nursing homes in North Carolina. The Citadel Salisbury
is on the list of nursing homes that have a history of "severe
problems," according to Medicare. Deficiencies noted in inspection
reports dropped from 15 in September 2020 to three in February
2021, but the nursing home remains on the most recent Medicare list
of homes that have not improved.

Two other North Carolina nursing homes run by Zanziper and Hyman
limited liability companies are on the special focus list or are
poised to be added.

Accordius Health at Clemmons is a "special focus facility" that has
shown improvement, according to Medicare. The Ivy at Gastonia is a
candidate for the list. The Medicare website gives the Gastonia
nursing home a 1-star or "much below average" rating.

Most of the nursing homes run by Zanziper and Hyman companies have
either one or two stars on the Medicare compare list. Medicare uses
reports from health inspections, reports on staffing – nursing
hours per resident per day – and quality of resident care to
calculate its ratings.

Twenty-seven of those nursing homes were rated with one or two
stars for staffing, meaning they were below or far below state or
national averages. Six of the nursing homes received three or four
stars for staffing.

The lawsuit includes an exhibit using staffing data the company
must send to the federal government. Those data show that nurse
staffing hours at the Citadel Salisbury met minimum federal
requirements on only 10 of 275 days, from April 2020 through
December 2020. For 152 days, the nursing home reported no
registered nurse work hours.

A shoestring business model?

The nursing home owners' business model depends on cutting employee
expenses, the lawsuit said.

The investment firm that Hyman and Zanziper run known as the
Portopiccolo Group was the subject of a Washington Post article
last December because it bought more than 20 nursing homes in
several states during the pandemic. The article says that while
Portopiccolo was buying three North Carolina nursing homes in 2019,
it stated in a mortgage loan contract that the company would save
$360,000 by lowering employee benefit and insurance costs and
another $410,000 by cutting equipment and transportation costs.

The current lawsuit references the mortgage contract.

Attorney Michael Phillips of HAT Law

Michael Phillips of HAT Law, an attorney representing the nursing
home defendants, said in an email that the claims about
understaffing are wrong, and that lawyers at Wallace & Graham, the
Salisbury firm that filed the suit, know it. Further, the claims
about cost-cutting in the mortgage contract "have absolutely no
merit," the email said.

Wallace & Graham filed a lawsuit against the nursing home last year
that ended in March 2021 with a consent agreement. The nursing home
said it had been, and would continue to abide by the nursing home
patient "Bill of Rights."

Wallace & Graham is known for its representing people sickened by
asbestos and for suing Smithfield Foods/Murphy-Brown on behalf of
residents dealing with odors and noise from industrialized swine
farms.

"Through discovery done in their prior, dry-run lawsuit,
Plaintiff's counsel was furnished with written documentation of
actual nurse hours worked at the Citadel Salisbury, which clearly
showed the facility staffed at a significantly higher rate than
what was falsely asserted in the present lawsuit," said Phillips.
"The Plaintiff's lawyers also deposed witnesses who testified
consistent with the written documentation that the Citadel
Salisbury appropriately staffed at a significantly higher rate than
what has been claimed."

The court file for the lawsuit brought last year includes documents
that are in a manila envelope marked "Confidential – Attorney's
Eyes Only." Hughes said in an interview that he could not discuss
the information contained therein because the company wants it to
be confidential.

The lawsuit relies on data the company sends to the federal
government, which the company tells the government is accurate,
Hughes said. "If that data is inaccurate, probably that company
shouldn't be in business. The government relies on it being
accurate, and so did we. If the data is so wrong it makes a
difference in our allegations, I think we will be adding another
claim."

Hughes said that as part of the lawsuit brought last year,
Accordius Health COO Kim Morrow agreed on the first day of her
deposition that the public data on staffing was accurate; but on
the second day of the deposition she said it was incomplete, and
"there is other data showing how more staffing was occurring and
somehow it didn't get into her data."

The lawsuit puts responsibility for operations at the Citadel
Salisbury on the limited liability companies, rather than the local
administrator who is supposed to manage the nursing home. The
lawsuit claims that Portopiccolo, Hyman, and Zanziper exclusively
control the negotiation of vendor contracts, wages and pay scales,
hires of contract labor, accounting, and instructions for the
nursing home chain.

"Portopiccolo was directly and materially involved in making and
implementing the staffing and supply decisions that gave rise to
this action," the suit says.

In depositions last year, the local administrator did not know what
the facility's budget or that her boss owned the staffing agency,
Hughes said.

"She couldn't say, 'buy more masks,'" Hughes said. "She had no
power to do that."

Phillips did not address the claims about medications or
pre-pandemic supply problems, but said in the email that it was
hard for all nursing homes to get supplies during the pandemic.

It was extremely difficult to find "PPE, toilet paper, hand
sanitizer, and other supplies for many months after the pandemic
was declared," he wrote. "Finding supplies was just as challenging
for nursing homes. When there were shortages, it was never due to
cost control concerns."

A state report on COVID-19 outbreaks from June 23, 2020, said that
the Citadel Salisbury had 168 COVID-19 cases, 114 of those among
residents, and 18 COVID-19-related resident deaths.

One of the lawsuit plaintiff's Betty Deal, tested positive for
COVID-19 last April. Her daughter-in-law, Donna, had a hard time
finding out the test result, according to the suit. Under the new
nursing home owners Betty Deal did not receive her medications for
Parkinson's disease on schedule, the lawsuit claims. Deal also went
without a hearing aid for weeks because it sat undelivered on a
nursing cart, the lawsuit said. On August 2, Donna called the
nursing home and was told there was only one certified nursing
assistant in the building.

Using a company's own reports to show chronic understaffing would
be a first for a North Carolina lawsuit, Hughes said.

A bigger question is whether for-profit companies should own
nursing homes.

"Should this kind of care be managed by a remote central office?"
he asked. [GN]

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Suit Seeks Billions in Wake of Bribery Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ponce at fox32chicago.com reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against ComEd in the wake of the bribery
scandal involving state government officials.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court by attorneys at
DiCello Levitt Gutzler and Romanucci & Blandin, says customers have
been overpaying on their electric bills, and will continue to
overpay, as a result of legislation fueled by the bribes.

The surplus amount is $17.2 billion, according to the lawsuit.

"What's happened here, by ComEd's own admission, there's been a
gross violation of the public trust," said Adam Levitt of DiCello
Levitt Gutzler.

After ComEd admitted to bribing associates of high-level elected
officials, Levitt says the resulting $200 million fine was a slap
on the wrist compared to the profit they say those bribes
generated.

"The total amount of admitted benefit that they have received we
have determined through experts is $17.2 billion--with a 'B,'" said
co-counsel Stephan Blandin of Romanucci & Blandin.

DOWNLOAD THE FOX 32 NEWS APP

Levitt and Blandin say the rate hikes resulting from the bribes are
already built into the monthly bills of 4.2 million ComEd
customers, who they say have been overpaying since 2016 and will
continue to overpay for the foreseeable future.

If they win the case, they say it could mean thousands of dollars
back into the pockets of each customer.

"If they're paying more than they should be each month, that's
unjust," said Levitt. "That's not right and it's money that is
theirs."

ComEd released the following statement in response to the lawsuit:


"Over the last 10 years, legislation that paved the way for ComEd's
smart grid investments delivered the reliable power that northern
Illinois families and businesses expect and prepared the system for
extreme weather. These improvements have helped prevent more than
16 million customer interruptions, resulting in $2.7 billion in
savings. At the same time, ComEd households pay less than they did
nearly a decade ago and enjoy rates lower than customers in
comparable U.S. cities. Regulators under three different governors
have approved every dollar of ComEd's investments in lengthy annual
proceedings, and any claim that the investments did not benefit
customers has no merit."

The case is expected to go to trial in 2022. [GN]

COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Blanton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Communications Test
Design Inc. The case is styled as Jodie Blanton Jr., as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Communications Test Design Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0005136 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
June 7, 2021).

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

Communications Test Design Inc. (CTDI) -- https://www.ctdi.com/ --
delivers innovative, in-region and technical supply chain solutions
to the world's leading telecom carriers, cable companies, and
OEMs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          1110 Franklin St. Ste. 6
          Oakland, CA 94607-6528
          Phone: (415) 779-2888
          Fax: (415) 738-7873
          Email: larry@ysleelaw.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Becker Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Edward Becker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-11829-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., May 26,
2021).

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

Credit Collection Services (CCS) --
https://www.ccsusa.com/opCo_ccs.html -- is recognized as one of the
nation's largest and most respected collection firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Phone: (201) 507-6300
          Email: lh@hershlegal.com



CREDIT LAW: Seeks to Stay Motion for Class Certification Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC
a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN LLC, d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER, and
THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO
(D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying
the briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification until
such time as the Court has ruled on the fully-briefed Rule 12(b)(1)
Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Defendants ask the Court to vacate the
14-day deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification,
and re-set the deadline for the Defendants' response to 45 days
following its order on this Motion.

On September 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint asserting a single claim for an alleged violation of the
Credit Repair Organizations Act. On December 18, 2020, the Parties
completed fact discovery. Expert discovery closed on April 9, 2021.
On March 8, 2021, CLC filed its Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint with Prejudice challenging the Court's subject
matter jurisdiction on the ground that Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to pursue his only remaining claim because he suffered no
concrete injury. On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion for
Class Certification and Memorandum of Law in support thereof.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uWETkv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy A. Hudson, Esq.
          Jordan E. Wilkow, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
          209 S. LaSalle St., 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762-9450
          Facsimile: (312) 762-9451
          E-mail: thudson@tdrlawfirm.com
                  jwilkow@tdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Chad C. Beaver, Esq.
          BEAVER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 920
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 579-1800
          Facsimile: (816) 817-0540
          E-mail: cbeaver@beaver-law.com

DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers File Suit Over Upgradeable Laptop
--------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a complaint filed seeks to "redress
the greed" of Dell Technologies in connection with representations
it made about its flagship gaming laptop, the Alienware Area 51M R1
(Area 51M R1). According to the plaintiff, Dell caused unsuspecting
customers to overpay for the laptop based on the promise that
certain core hardware components were fully upgradeable, when, in
reality, they were not.

The Northern District of California filing explained that prior to
the release of the Area 51M R1, and to gain a competitive edge in
the "intensely competitive gaming laptop market segment," Dell told
customers that its product's central processing unit (CPU) and its
graphics processing unit (GPU) were fully upgradeable to future
CPUs and GPUs. As such, purchasers of the Area 51M R1 would only
have to pay to upgrade laptop parts rather than purchase a whole
new machine, the plaintiff contended.

Such upgradeability, the complaint averred, is the "elusive holy
grail of mobile computing." However, the plaintiff asserted that
Dell's promise was an affirmative and knowing misrepresentation.

Allegedly, if he and other purchasers had known that the laptop was
not upgradeable, and instead that the core components would last
less than a year before requiring the purchase of an entirely new
laptop, they would not have paid the $2,700 price for the laptop.

The complaint seeks to certify a regional class consisting of
consumers residing in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington who purchased an Area 51M
R1 in 2019 and a parallel California subclass. The complaint stated
a claim for breach of contract and warranty and violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the state's Unfair
Competition Law.

The complainant and putative class seek damages for fraudulent
misrepresentation and injunctive relief. Hochfelsen & Kani LLP and
Mahany Law represent the plaintiff. [GN]

DENALI STAFFING: Initial Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DENALI
STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-1185 (E.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Agreement;

   2. certifying for settlement purposes only, the proposed Rule
23
      Class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective;

   3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing the Plaintiff Wright, as representative of the
      Settlement Class;

   5. approving the mailing of the Notice Packet to class members
      in a form;

   6. setting deadlines for the members of the Settlement Class to

      opt out of the case or object to the Agreement;

   7. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt

      in to the FLSA Collective;

   8. finding that such Notice process satisfies due process;

   9. directing that any member of Rule 23 Class who has not
      properly requested exclusion and FLSA Collective members who

      have chosen to participate to the FLSA Collective shall be
      bound by the Agreement in the event the Court issues a Final

      Order Approving Settlement;

  10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class or FLSA
      Collective who wishes to object to the Agreement in any way
      must do so per the instructions set forth in the Notice
      Packet; and

  11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Agreement.

The Agreement provides for a total monetary settlement payment of
$36,772.58 inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The Parties
believe that the settlement is fair and reasonable, as it fully and
adequately satisfies this Court's criteria for such settlements.

On August 3, 2020, the Plaintiff Wright, filed his Complaint
against Denali on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on
September 22, 2020, in which the Plaintiff substituted Denali as
the sole Defendant. Denali is no longer a party to this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of Denali
within the three years preceding the filing of his Complaint. In
his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged violations of the FLSA
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL), to wit,
the Defendant failed to compensate said employees for daily rest
breaks that lasted fewer than 20 consecutive minutes in duration,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, and/or meal periods during
which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work
for at 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the WWPCL.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uVkFI0at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, are:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC
          235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

The Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Christopher K. Schuele, Esq.
          Robert K. Sholl, Esq.
          REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN SC
          1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 298-1000
          E-mail: rsholl@reinhartlaw.com
                  cschuele@reinhartlaw.com

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Cody Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Powell Cody, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DePaul University, Case No. D
2021CH01027 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 4, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03001 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

DePaul University -- https://www.depaul.edu/ -- is the largest
Catholic university in the U.S. and private institution in Chicago,
serving nearly 23000 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DT EMPLOYER: Rosales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Rosales, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DT EMPLOYER LLC, a Virginia Corporation; HILTON
EMPLOYER INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2021-01202903-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
May 26, 2021), is brought to seek unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages, premium wages for missed meal breaks, rest breaks, wages,
and wages upon termination, reimbursement for necessary business
expenses.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California law
by preventing Class Members and Subclass Members from paying the
wages rate for minimum wages and overtime wages, taking their
entitled rest breaks, meal breaks, wages upon termination, and
waiting time penalties upon termination and for failing to
reimburse for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other
relief under California Industrial Welfare Commission, California
Labor Code, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5,
California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.,
and California common law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a nonexempt employee
associated with housekeeping tasks associated with cleaning rooms
for customers at the Defendants' hotel.

DT Employer, LLC is a Virginia corporation doing business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON APC
          2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone (949) 281-6857
          Fax (949) 777-6218


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Entwistle & Cappucci Discloses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci" or "E&C") today
announced that the firm has filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of investors that purchased Emergent BioSolutions
Inc.("Emergent" or the "Company") (NYSE: EBS) common stock from
April 24, 2020 through April 16, 2021, inclusive. A copy of the
complaint is available at: www.entwistle-law.com. Institutions and
individuals that invested in Emergent common stock may contact E&C
for additional information concerning the litigation and to discuss
potential strategies for the recovery of any losses.

The action arises from Emergent's pervasive quality control
problems at the Company's Bayview COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing
facility in Baltimore, Maryland that culminated in the destruction
of up to 100 million COVID-19 Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca
vaccine doses.

The complaint alleges, based on documents recently made public,
that numerous statements issued by Emergent concerning its
manufacturing processes, capabilities, quality control procedures
and status as a purported leader in the biopharmaceutical industry
were materially false and misleading.

First, an internal audit conducted in June 2020 by Johnson &
Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals found two "Major"
quality control deficiencies, including "deficient" contamination
controls and that the Company failed to conform to basic industry
standards;

Second, U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") inspections of
Emergent's Baltimore facility conducted both prior to and following
the Company's award of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing contracts
notified the Company of a "series of quality control shortcomings"
including the "fail[ure] to ensure that electronic data" was
"protected from deletion or manipulation," "carelessness in the
handling of rejected materials" and failure to "follow proper
testing and lab procedures;" and

Third, Dr. Carlo de Notaristefani, an Operation Warp Speed
Manufacturing & Supply Chain adviser charged with overseeing the
production of COVID-19 vaccines on behalf of the federal
government, issued a draft report in June 2020 highlighting
Emergent's key manufacturing risk as the "remediation of the
compliance gaps identified by the FDA inspection held in April
2020." Dr. Notaristefani further noted that the Company's staffing
was "inadequate to enable the Company to manufacture at the
required rate" and Emergent would need to expend "significant
resources" and "strengthen" quality controls to meet manufacturing
scale-up and roll-out deadlines.

Emergent allegedly admitted to the FDA - but not the investing
public - that the Company was plagued with known manufacturing
problems, including that the "sudden scale-up" had "strained the
capacity" of the Company's COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing
facility.

When these facts became public through a series of partial
corrective disclosures, the price of Emergent's common stock
declined significantly, eliminating over $1.5 billion in market
capitalization.

If you invested in Emergent BioSolutions common stock, please feel
free to contact attorneys Robert N. Cappucci or Joshua K. Porter at
212-894-7200, or via e-mail at rcappucci@entwistle-law.com or
jporter@entwistle-law.com.

                     About Entwistle & Cappucci

Entwistle & Cappucci is a national law firm providing exceptional
legal representation to clients globally in the most complex and
challenging legal matters. Our practice encompasses all areas of
litigation, including securities, antitrust, corporate
transactions, general corporate and commercial, creditor's rights
and bankruptcy, corporate governance and fiduciary duty, government
affairs, insurance, investigations and white-collar defense. Our
clients include public and private corporations, major hedge funds,
public pension funds, governmental entities, leading institutional
investors, domestic and foreign financial services companies,
emerging business enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. [GN]

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Discloses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
the firm has filed a securities fraud class action against Emergent
BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) ("Emergent") on behalf of investors
who purchased or acquired Emergent common stock between April 24,
2020, and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
action, captioned Roth v. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01189-CCB (the "Roth Action"), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Southern
Division).

Investor Deadline Reminder: For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com; or visit:
https://www.ktmc.com/emergent-biosolutions-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=emergent.

Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops
vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases.
Emergent signed a series of deals with Johnson & Johnson ("J&J")
and AstraZeneca worth a combined $876 million to provide contract
development and manufacturing organization services to produce the
companies' COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

The Class Period begins on April 24, 2020, the day after Emergent
announced that it had entered into an agreement with J&J to
manufacture J&J's COVID-19 vaccine candidate at Emergent's
Baltimore facility. Under the deal, Emergent would provide drug
substance manufacturing services and reserve large-scale
manufacturing capacity for J&J.

On April 19, 2021, Emergent revealed that, "at the request of the
FDA, Emergent agreed not to initiate the manufacturing of any new
material at its Bayview facility and to quarantine existing
material manufactured at the Bayview facility pending completion of
the [FDA's] inspection and remediation of any resulting findings."
Following this news, the price of Emergent's common stock declined
$9.77 per share, or more than 12%, from a close of $77.64 per share
on April 16, 2021, to close at $67.87 per share on April 19, 2021.

The Roth Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore
facility had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the
likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) the Baltimore facility
had received a series of FDA citations as a result of these
contamination risks and quality control issues; (3) Emergent had
been forced to discard millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after
workers at the facility deviated from manufacturing standards; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements
about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple
COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore facility were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit
www.ktmc.com. [GN]

FAMILY FOOT: Filing of Preliminary Class Cert. Bid Due October 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASSANDRA DEISINGER and
JESSICA DEISINGER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FAMILY FOOT AND ANKLE CLINIC, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00107-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker
entered an preliminary pretrial conference order stating that:

   1. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary       October 1, 2021
      certification of the FLSA class:

   2. Amendments to the pleadings:             July 2, 2022

   3. Motions & Briefs To Certify/Decertify    January 28, 2022
      Classes:

   4. Disclosure of experts:
      Plaintiffs:                              June 1, 2022
      Defendant:                               July 1, 2022

   5. Deadline for filing dispositive          August 1, 2022
      motions:

   6. Settlement Letters:                      December 9, 2022

   7. Discovery Cutoff:                        December 9, 2022

   8. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and            December 19, 2022
      all motions in limine:

   9. Objections:                              January 6, 2023

  10. Final Pretrial Conference:               January 17, 2023

  11. Trial:                                   January 30, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pqflLA at no extra charge.[CC]


FIRST TRANSIT: Settlement Agreement in Alkady Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALKADY, v. FIRST
TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-02291-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Final Approval Motion is granted.

   2. The parties and ILYM shall complete their respective duties
      and obligations under the Settlement Agreement and this
      Order. ILYM shall treat all class member personal information

      as confidential, not to be disclosed for any purpose other
      than as provided by the Settlement Agreement.

   3. ILYM shall receive $17,838 from the Gross Settlement Amount
      for its notice and settlement administration services.

   4. Plaintiff's Fee Motion is granted in part and denied in
part.

   5. The Class Counsel shall receive $132,500 for their fees and
      $8,803.06 for costs from the Gross Settlement Amount.

   6. The Plaintiff shall receive $3,000 from the Gross Settlement

      Amount as an incentive award.

   7. The Plaintiff and the class members shall be deemed to have
      released their claims as provided in the Settlement
      Agreement.

   8. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the court
      retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation,
      implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

   9. This action is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff
      dismisses the Amended Complaint as provided in the Settlement

      Agreement.

In this class action alleging wage and hour violations on behalf of
non-exempt fixed-route bus drivers at Defendant's Orange County
Transportation Authority locations in Santa Ana and Irvine, the
Plaintiff filed unopposed motions for final approval of class
action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and class
representative's incentive award. No objections have been received.
Having read and considered the Motions, including supporting
declarations, exhibits, and Settlement Agreement in light of prior
proceedings in this action, and given no objection or opposition to
the Motions, the Settlement Approval Motion is granted, and the Fee
Motion is granted in part.

In the operative first amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination,
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300
locations, carrying more than 350 million passengers annually
throughout the United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama,
India and four Canadian provinces.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z5MFfp at no extra charge.[CC]


FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of August 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Frequency, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FREQ) ("Frequency" or the "Company") and its Chief Executive
Officer, David Lucchino, alleging violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a)) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5). If you
purchased Frequency common stock between November 16, 2020, and
March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a
loss, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact Joe
Pettigrew for additional information at 844-818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The action was filed in the District of
Massachusetts and is captioned Evans v. Frequency Therapeutics,
Inc., No. 1:21-cv-10933 (D. Mass. June 3, 2021).

Frequency is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322,"
which the Company has long promoted as a potential treatment for
patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL").

The complaint alleges that Frequency and CEO Lucchino misled
investors about the Phase 2a study of FX-322.

Before the market opened on March 23, 2021, Frequency disclosed in
a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a
study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not
demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo.

On this news, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78%
drop, damaging investors.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline

The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is August 2, 2021. Any
member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Frequency common stock between November 16, 2020,
and March 22, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at 844-818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

                        About Scott+Scott

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.

This may be considered Attorney Advertising. [GN]

FUELCO ENERGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Segovia FLSA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN SEGOVIA and VICTOR FLORES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUELCO
ENERGY LLC, Defendant, Case No. SA-17-CV-1246-JKP, Consolidated
with Case No. SA-19-CV-1129-JKP (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason Pulliam of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for Decertification
of Collective Action.

As a fuel supplier for gas production companies, the Defendant
employs individuals to provide fuel for customers at their gas
hydraulic fracturing sites ("job site").  On a typical job site,
the Defendant assigns two fuel trucks (known as "bobtails"), each
with a two-person crew -- a driver and an operator or technician.
It would thus have a four-member crew for both shifts (night and
day).  Therefore, there is typically a crew of eight for each job
site.  Each bobtail remains on site for the duration of the job.
Crew members work together to provide fuel to equipment at the
site.

Given the nature of the job sites -- often located in remote areas
-- and the lengthy nature of each job project, the Defendant lodges
its crews at the nearest hotel or at a "man-camp" for the duration
of the project.  It would provide a van or truck to transport crews
between the hotel and job sites.  Usually, both shifts would use
the same van with one shift using it to travel to the job site and
the departing shift using it to return to the hotel.  Sometimes, a
member of the working crew would drive to the hotel from the work
site, pick up the next shift, and return to the job site. And
sometimes each shift had a company van for their transportation.

At times, the Defendant would place its drivers/technicians on call
and pay them their regular rate of pay for time spent on call at
the hotel.  It would also pay them their regular rate of pay for
their commute time to the job site.  According to the Defendant, it
did not include either on call time (also known as "standby time")
or commuting time (also known as "drive time") in its overtime pay
calculations, but it would include some on call time in its
overtime calculations if the employee was on "standby" at the job
site or working in Defendant's "yard performing various tasks."

Plaintiffs Segovia and Flores commenced the action by filing an
Original Complaint - Collective Action with consents to join in
December 2017.  They later moved for conditional certification
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and relied on a two-step approach
utilized in Lusardi v. Xerox, Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D. N.J. 1987).
They sought conditional certification of "All Drivers and/or Frack
Fuel Technicians since Dec. 8, 2014."

On Dec. 10, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge granted the
Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint, partially
granted the motion for conditional class certification, and
conditionally certified the following class in the case: "All Frack
Fuel Technicians employed by Defendant since Dec. 8, 2014."  The
next day, the Plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint.
As set out in the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs bring the
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant distinguished between four
time-categories for each Plaintiff or putative plaintiff --
"Regular," "Overtime," "Standby," and "Drive Time" -- and that it
only paid regular hourly rate for the latter two types.  They
allege that the policy of paying the regular rate for "Standby" or
"Drive Time" violates the FLSA, either because the time was working
time that could qualify for overtime under the FLSA or because the
time qualified as non-discretionary bonuses that should have been
included when calculating overtime pay.  Specifically, they assert
three claims: (1) individual overtime pay based on Section 207 for
"drive time" and "standby time" claims; (2) individual overtime pay
based on Section 207 for regular rate claims; and (3) overtime
claims as a collective action claim.

The Defendant previously moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which the
District Court accepted without objection.  The Magistrate Judge
identified the Plaintiffs as "Frac Fuel Technicians" or "Operators"
and noted that four such employees would staff a fracking wellsite.
As framed by the Magistrate Judge, "the question presented by
Fuelco's summary judgment motion is whether Section 207(a)(1)
should be applied to hours listed on the Plaintiffs' earning
statements under the categories 'Drive Time' and 'Standby' Time."

For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Court granted
summary judgment to the Defendant regarding whether "standby" time
payments are or should be included in determining the "regular
rate" of pay, but otherwise denied summary judgment without
prejudice to renewal of the motion after further discovery.  On
April 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge partially granted a motion for
approval and distribution of notice.  At that point, three
additional employees had filed consents to opt in.  Thereafter,
numerous individuals filed consents to join this collective action
as Opt-in Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge issued a Phase II
Scheduling Order used in these types of collective actions, and the
case has proceeded in accordance with such scheduling order as
periodically amended.

In August 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge Pilliam who
continued the reference of all pretrial matters to the Magistrate
Judge.  On April 15, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted an
unopposed motion to consolidate by Fuelco and thus consolidated the
case with Case No. SA-19-CV-1129-JKP for all pretrial purposes,
"but such consolidation is without prejudice to the right of any
party to request a separate trial of any issue, claim, or
counterclaim in the case." See Order Consolidating Cases.
Thereafter, six consents were subsequently withdrawn.

On Oct. 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Phase II
Scheduling Order to set various deadlines, including one for filing
a motion for decertification (Dec. 4, 2020) and one for motions for
summary judgment (45 days after ruling on motion for
decertification).  The next month, the Magistrate Judge set a
briefing schedule and extended the deadline for a decertification
motion to Dec. 18, 2020.

On Dec. 18, 2020, the Defendant timely filed its motion for
decertification with a separate appendix.  The Plaintiffs filed
their response with delayed exhibits.  After Defendant filed a
reply brief with a separate appendix, the Magistrate Judge returned
the case to Judge Pulliam because all pretrial matters were
complete.

Taking an appropriate abstract view of the employees, Judge Pulliam
finds that the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are
similarly situated, and the case may proceed as a collective
action.  He opines that the Plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus
that binds the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs as
alleged victims of a specific policy or practice to not pay
overtime wages for drive time or standby time.  Allowing the
employees to pursue their claims together furthers the purpose of
the FLSA overtime provisions.  And collective pursuit of the cases
appears fair to both sides and does not make trial unmanageable.
While there are some differences between employees, such as what
each employee did or did not do pre- and post-driving, the
differences do not affect whether the employees are similarly
situated.

For these reasons, Judge Pulliam denies Defendant Fuelco's Motion
for Decertification of Collective Action.  In doing so, he
affirmatively conducts the similarly situated analysis in
accordance with the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM
Transp. Servs., LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021) that rejected the
two-step conditional certification approach applied earlier in the
case.  Naturally, because the instant case proceeded under a
conditional certification for more than two years before the Swales
decision, the Judge could not simply ignore the historical
conditional certification when making its determination as to
whether the original Plaintiffs and the Opt-in Plaintiffs are
similarly situated and thus may proceed collectively.

The Magistrate Judge previously set a deadline for any dispositive
motion at 45 days from the date of this ruling.  On June 25, 2021,
the parties will submit the joint stipulation as to sub-classes and
any individual proposals that the parties want the Court to
consider.  Given this deadline and the complexity of the collective
action, Judge Pulliam extends the dispositive motion deadline to
Aug. 24, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjk2d9sj from
Leagle.com.


GEICO CASUALTY: Rose Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Casualty
Company, et al. The case is styled as Richard Rose, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Casualty
Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00385-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., June 4, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Destination Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewin Day at thedrive.com reports that when buying a new car,
there's a host of wheeling and dealing that goes on before you come
to a final purchase price. There's the recommended retail, plus
taxes, minus rebates and offers, and then there's the destination
charge. It's nominally the cost the automaker charges for
delivering the car from the factory to the dealership, which the
dealership then passes on to the consumer. In a class action
lawsuit just served to GM, however, customers are alleging that the
automaker has been taking profit from destination charges, and
they're seeking restitution, reports CarComplaints.

Plaintiffs in the case are customers that have purchased GM
vehicles in California and New Jersey. Robert Romoff of California
was charged a $1195 destination charge when purchasing a Chevrolet
Equinox, while Joe Siciliano of New Jersey was charged $995 for a
Cadillac Escalade delivery. The lawsuit itself claims that
destination fees can be up to $1695 in some cases. Notably,
customers are unable to negotiate on these charges, and must pay
the going rate quoted by the company as a part of the purchase
process.

The primary allegation is that customers were misled over the
nature of the fee, which was represented as the genuine cost of
delivering the vehicle. It suggests that there's a "significant
amount of profit" included in destination charges, which are
outwardly presented as the basic cost of delivering a vehicle. In
the class action filing, it states:

"[A] destination fee is generally understood in the automotive
industry to reflect the manufacturer's average cost of delivering
one of its vehicles to a dealership. That destination fee is
charged to the dealer and passed on to the purchaser or lessee of
that vehicle. Consumers similarly have the expectation that they
are covering an automotive manufacturer's cost for the delivery of
the manufacturer's vehicles when paying the "destination fee" as
part of their new-vehicle lease or purchase."

Research from Consumer Reports has suggested that destination fees
have been climbing for some time, notably rising 30% from 2011 to
2020, or two and a half times above inflation. Counter arguments
are that the cost of shipping vehicles has gone up as car sizes
have increased, with less cars fitting on each tractor-trailer.
There's also talk of fuel prices playing a role, as well. Despite
this, it remains to be seen whether there is profit being taken in
these charges. Speaking on the matter to Consumer Reports,
independent consultant Dan Bedore made a cogent point on the topic,
asserting that "It does not take a mathematician to understand the
value of a $100 increase to a company that sells two million units
a year."

The GM suit is not the only game in town, either—CarComplaints
reported that the same law firm filed a class action against
Chrysler for the same practice back in May. Whether or not
automakers are padding their balance sheets with excessive delivery
charges will likely be borne out in court. If GM has evidence that
the charges legitimately reflect their costs, the suit may fail.
Alternatively, the class action could be the warning shot across
the bow that prompts automakers to reign in their delivery fees
from rising too much further. We've examined the costs of shipping
cars ourselves, and look forward to seeing what comes to light in
due time. [GN]

GLOBAL CREDIT: Lapinski Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Kathleen Lapinski, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Global Credit &
Collection Corp., Case No. 9:21-cv-80937-AMC (S.D. Fla., May 26,
2021).

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

Global Credit & Collection Corporation doing business as Affinity
Global -- http://www.affglo.com/-- is located in Chicago, Illinois
and is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          2150 South Andrews Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Fax: (954) 581-2786
          Email: matis@fight13.com

               - and -

          Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          3201 Griffin road, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Phone: (954) 523-4357
          Email: matthew@fight13.com

               - and -

          Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


HAMMERMAN & HULTGREN: Grantham Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hammerman & Hultgren
PC. The case is styled as Christopher Grantham, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Hammerman & Hultgren PC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00982-MTL (D. Ariz., June 4, 2021).

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

Hammerman & Hultgren -- http://hammerman-hultgren.com/-- is the
leader in collection services in Phoenix and beyond.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Landsdale Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Landsdale 329 Prop LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LANSDALE 329 PROP,
LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02034-MSG, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Lansdale 329 Prop, LLC, 329 Mainlans, LLC and Lincoln
Liquor LLC d/b/a Stove and Tap, and 560 Wellington Square
Associates LLC d/b/a Al Pastor are two businesses who are insureds
through policies issued by Defendant The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc. d/b/a The Hartford. The Defendant has
allegedly denied Plaintiffs' claim for business interruption
coverage, giving rise to the lawsuit for breach of contract and a
declaratory judgment.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Landsdale 329 Prop LLC, et al.
v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., Case No. 21-2047, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June
1, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LANDSDALE 329 PROP LLC, 329 MAINLANS LLC,
LINCOLN LIQUOR LLC, DBA Stove and Tap, and 560 WELLINGTON SQUARE
ASSOCIATES LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, DBA Al Pastor, are represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.  
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          2001 Market Street, 38th Floor
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  jbarrack@barrack.com
                  mrosen@barrack.com
                  mtalbot@barrack.com  

Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO is
represented by:

          Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1265
          E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com  

               - and -

          Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq.
          BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2740
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 405-9191

               - and -

          Sarah D. Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005
          E-mail: sgordon@steptoe.com

HONEY POT COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Honey Pot Company
(DE), LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Honey Pot Company (DE),
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04985 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

The Honey Pot -- https://thehoneypot.co/ -- seeks to promote female
health through plant-based products, offering feminine care with
natural washes, wipes and pads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


HOUSTON WIRE: Omni Cable Merger Deal Lacks Info, Parshall Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PARSHALL, Plaintiff v. HOUSTON WIRE & CABLE COMPANY, ROY W.
HALEY, MARGARET S. LAIRD, DAVID NIERENBERG, JAMES L. POKLUDA III,
SANDFORD W. ROTHE, WILLIAM H. SHEFFIELD, and G. GARY YETMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04072 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) is
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, against Houston Wire & Cable Company and the
members of Houston Wire's Board of Directors for their violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, and to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Houston Wire will be acquired by Omni Cable, LLC through
OmniCable's subsidiary OCDFH Acquisition Sub Inc.

On March 25, 2021, Houston Wire and OmniCable issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated March 24, 2021 to sell Houston Wire to OmniCable.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Houston Wire
stockholder will receive $5.30 cash for each share of Houston Wire
common stock they own. The proposed transaction is valued at
approximately $91 million.

According to the complaint, on May 12, 2021, Houston Wire filed a
Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Houston Wire stockholders vote in
favor of the proposed transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
Company's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying
the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the Company's financial advisor, Johnson Rice &
Company, L.L.C. and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest faced
by Johnson Rice and the Company's additional financial advisor,
William Blair & Company, L.L.C.

The Defendant's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed
because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and
omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting
or appraisal decision on the proposed transaction, the suit added.

Houston Wire & Cable Company is one of the largest wire and cable
providers in America. The company was founded in 1975 and based in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP  
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

HUB INT'L: Ct. Certifies California Class & Wage Statement Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fabian Gonzalez, et al. v.
HUB International Limited, Case No. 5:20-cv-02600-PA-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order that:

   1. certifies the California Class and Wage Statement Subclass,
      and designates Gonzalez as the class representative for the
      certified class and subclass, and appoints his chosen
      counsel, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmid De Blow LLP, as class

      counsel.

   2. neither Gonzalez nor Sanchez have satisfied their burden to
      support certification of the Meal Break, Rest Period, Regular

      Rate Subclasses, and Derivative Subclasses, and that Sanchez

      is not an adequate class representative. The Court therefore

      denies certification of the remaining subclasses.

   3. the parties shall meet and confer concerning the content of
      the class notice and, by no later than June 14, 2021, file a

      proposed class notice and any necessary complementary
      documents. If the parties are unable to agree to the content

      of a class notice, they shall submit their competing versions

      of the class notice and a brief not to exceed three pages
      advocating for their respective versions of the class notice

      by no later than June 14, 2021.

Judge Anderson says Plaintiff Gonzalez is an adequate class
representative for the California Class and Wage Statement
Subclass, and that the Wage Statement Subclass satisfies the Rule
23 requirements for certification.

   a. The "Meal Break Subclass" defined as follows: "All non-
      exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Defendant in
      California at any time from January 8, 2015 through the date

      of class certification, and who worked at least one shift of

      more than 6 hours."

   b. The "Rest Period Subclass" defined as follows: "All non-
      exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for Defendant in
      California at any time from January 8, 2015 through the date

      of class certification, who worked at least one shift of more

      than 3.5 hours."

   c. The "Regular Rate Subclass" defined as follows: "All Class
      Members who worked overtime in a pay period in which
      'Employee Referral Bonus', 'Management Bonus', 'Bonus',
      'Reward Bonus' and/or 'Other Bonus' was received and whose
      overtime regular rate of pay did not account for such bonuses

      from January 8, 2015 through the date of class
      certification."

   d. The "Wage Statement Subclass" defined as follows: "All non-
      exempt, hourly-paid employees who worked for Defendant in
      California from January 8, 2018 through the date of class
      certification, who received at least one wage statement from
      Defendant."

The Plaintiffs also seek to certify derivative claims for waiting
time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203 for the Meal
Break, Rest Period, and Regular Rate subclasses for the period from
January 8, 2016, through the date of class certification. Defendant
opposes certification of the class and subclasses.

Gonzalez commenced this action in San Bernardino Superior Court on
January 8, 2019, and filed a First Amended Complaint on March 15,
2019. The Defendant, which is an insurance broker, removed the
action to this Court on March 28, 2019. After determining that the
Defendant had not satisfied its burden to establish the amount in
controversy required for a case removed under the Class Action
Fairness Act. The Court remanded the action on May 10, 2019. The
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in San Bernardino
Superior Court in March 2020, which added Sanchez as a named
plaintiff. After conducting discovery, and obtaining additional
information concerning the amount of damages the Plaintiffs seek,
the Defendant filed a second Notice of Removal on December 16,
2020. The second Notice of Removal again alleges that this Court
possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to
CAFA.

A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated May 25, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3qYe3 at no
extra charge.[CC]

HYATT CORPORATION: Hartstein Wins Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN HARTSTEIN v. HYATT
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04874-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting Hartstein's motion
for class certification:

   Class:

   "All individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State
of
   California at any time during the period from April 24, 2016 to

   final judgment (the "Relevant Period") and who fall within the
   definition of one or all of the following Subclasses:

   Subclass 1:


   "All members of the Class whose employment was terminated
   (including, without limitation, temporarily laid off, laid off,

   or "furloughed") and who were not paid for vested vacation time

   and/or floating holidays immediately upon cessation of their
   employment within the Relevant Period;"

   Subclass 2:

   "All members of the Class whose employment was terminated
   (including, without limitation, temporarily laid off, laid off,

   or "furloughed") and who were not paid for vested non-
   discretionary hotel room bonuses immediately upon cessation of
   their employment within the Relevant Period;" and

   Subclass 3:

   "All members of the Class who are or were hourly-paid and/or
   non-exempt, who worked overtime and received overtime pay, and
   who earned nondiscretionary hotel room bonuses during the
   Relevant Period."

   The class and subclasses will be represented by Plaintiff Karen
   Hartstein. Blackstone Law, APC is appointed as class counsel.

Hartstein is a former Hyatt employee. She was terminated from her
position in March 2020, when Hyatt instituted what it characterized
as temporary layoffs of more than 6,000 employees. Hyatt did not
provide a specific return to work date. It instead notified
employees it could take eight to twelve weeks for Hyatt to return
to normal business operations but that it would not commit to that
timeline. Hyatt provided no assurance that employees would be
rehired, and many were not. Hartstein alleges that at the time
Hyatt instituted the temporary layoffs, it knew the COVID-19
pandemic would have a catastrophic impact on its business and it
would be years before hotels would achieve pre-pandemic occupancy
rates.

Hyatt notified employees of the temporary layoffs by sending them a
letter. The letter noted employees would be "furloughed/temporarily
laid off from their employment on March 18, 2020," and that
employees' "health benefits w[ould] continue as is through the
months of April and May." Additionally, the letter stated: "To ease
any financial hardships, if you would like, we also can pay out
accrued vacation pay on that date at your request, although we are
not separating anyone’s employment at this time." Numerous
employees took Hyatt up on this offer and requested Hyatt pay them
for their accrued vacation wages, earned vacation wages, and
floating holidays. The payment of those wages was not immediate; it
was made on the next payroll cycle.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z4VBBP at no extra charge.[CC]


ILLINOIS: Ex Legislator Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
wcia.com reports that a third former state legislator has filed a
lawsuit to argue he is entitled to pay raises from years past --
even though he voted against them while he was in office.

Mike Fortner, a former Republican state representative and NIU
physics professor from West Chicago, had a reputation for paying
close attention to the state's many fiscal headaches.

Fortner filed the new lawsuit ay seeking backpay for himself and
all current or former state lawmakers. His lawyers argue Fortner's
previous votes to block his own pay raises were unconstitutional
because it changed his salary during the middle of his term.

"Fortner is entitled to receive his full COLA salary adjustments
for the period from July 2009 to January 2019 -- spanning all of
fiscal years 2010 through 2018 and the first six months of fiscal
year 2019," the suit argues.

Fortner's attorneys later filed a motion for class action
certification on Wednesday, which would extend to all current and
former members of the General Assembly -- even those who don't
publicly put their names on the lawsuit.

Comptroller Susana Mendoza (D-Illinois) called it "an ill-advised
class(less) action lawsuit" that "exposes taxpayers to millions of
dollars in additional liability."

Mendoza's office estimates the class action lawsuit could cost
taxpayers more than $10 million if the courts rule in Fortner's
favor.

"I respectfully suggest that this Professor of Particle Physics has
sued the wrong person – he should sue himself," Mendoza said. "HE
is the one who voted to deny himself a pay raise – not the
Comptroller's office. It's not rocket science, Professor. You
should know better."

In the early 2010s, elected officials won glowing headlines for
embracing fiscal discipline in forgoing their annual cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) pay raises. Governor Pat Quinn signed several
laws to require legislators to take furlough days as another way to
reduce their pay. Now, Fortner's lawsuit argues both were
unconstitutional, and asks the court to order the Comptroller to
reimburse him.

Last year, statehouse Democrats took a new approach to block their
automatic pay raises. Instead of writing conflicting language in
the budget that could contradict the state constitution, they
simply zeroed out the line item in the appropriations bill next to
the legislator pay raises.

"They absolutely could have" done that again this year, Comptroller
Susana Mendoza's spokesman Abdon Pallasch said in a phone call
Thursday night. Instead, this new state budget gives lawmakers
their full COLA.

The Illinois House filed the final budget bill with 20 minutes to
go before a midnight deadline on Monday. When the 3,088-page piece
of legislation arrived in the Senate for final approval, downstate
Senators Doris Turner (D-Springfield) and Rachelle Crowe (D-Glen
Carbon) were so surprised to see the legislator pay raises were
added back into the bill that they voted against it.

Two other former state senators, Michael Noland (D-Elgin) and James
Clayborne (D-Belleville), have gone back and forth against the
Comptroller's office in court, claiming they were entitled to
reimbursement for lost wages. Both Noland and Clayborne also voted
against pay raises while they were in office, and sued for them in
court after they left Springfield.

A judge recently awarded Noland and Clayborne a victory and ruled
they do have a right to back pay. Mendoza has not issued them
checks, and has appealed the decision, saying she will take the
fight all the way to the state Supreme Court.

Court records list Eric Madiar as one of Fortner's attorneys in the
new lawsuit. Madiar served as former Senate President John
Cullerton's chief legal counsel before leaving state government to
open a lobbying firm. As the Senate Parliamentarian, Madiar would
have signed off on the maneuver when Noland, Clayborne, and Fortner
voted to block their own pay raises.

If the courts ultimately decide the constitutional guarantee of a
COLA supersedes the General Assembly's power to appropriate funds
for their own salaries, politicians could still find a way to
publicly denounce the raise and donate the funds.

"I will send legislators the forms state employees can already use
to distribute a portion of their salaries to charity," Mendoza
said. "As a former legislator who voted against these pay raises, I
will lead by example, donating any back pay I get to charity and
will encourage others to do the same."[GN]

J.B. HUNT: Joint Bid to Continue Class Cert. Briefing Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE WILLIAMS & PAUL
CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01701-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the joint motion to
continue class certification briefing, deadlines and hearing as:

   -- Plaintiffs shall file their opening brief by September 17,
      2021:

   -- Defendant shall file its opposition brief by October 15,
      2021; and

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief by October 29,
      2021.

J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company based
in Lowell, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wYBnYv at no extra charge.[CC]

J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Files Renewed Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL,
on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. J.J.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the Class defined as:

   "All persons in the state of Florida who received at least one
   collection letter from J.J. Marshall."

The Plaintiff Gartrell files this Motion for Class Certification on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, to secure
redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
(FCCPA).

The facts in this case are simple and largely undisputed. The FCCPA
requires debt collectors to register with the state before
collecting debts from Florida consumers. J.J. Marshall &
Associates, Inc. has never been registered as a debt collector in
Florida. On February 4, 2019, J.J. Marshall, sent a standard form
debt collection letter to Plaintiff, a Florida resident, without
disclosing that it was unregistered and therefore not legally
permitted to take such actions, the Plaintiff contends.

JJ Marshall has sent similar collection letters to 1,098 Florida
consumers within the two-year limitations period. The predominating
common issues in this case ask whether collecting consumer debts
owed by Florida consumers without being registered violates the
FDCPA and/or the FCCPA.

JJ Marshall attempted to collect a $612.92 personal debt allegedly
owed to Plaintiff's previous landlord for pest control, cleaning
and carpet replacement charges after she vacated her Jacksonville
apartment. Ms. Gartrell insists that she does not owe the landlord
because that apartment was vacated in the same condition it was in
when she took possession, and the charges were for damage that were
merely normal wear and tear items.

J.J. Marshall is a Michigan based debt collection company and is
not, and never has been, registered as a debt collector in
Florida.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3inPwKA at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Glenn Banner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GLENN S. BANNER, P.A.
          Florida Bar No.: 0620254
          5245 Commissioners Drive
          Jacksonville, FL 32224
          Telephone: (904) 240-4401
          E-mail: gbanner@gbannerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale T. Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC
          1135 Marbella Plaza Drive
          Tampa, FL 33619
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com

JAGUAR LAND: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due July 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY BLOCK and VICTORYA
MANAKIN on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. JAGUAR
LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05957-SRC-CLW
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order that:

   1. the Plaintiffs shall file any motion for class certification
      on or before July 23, 2021;

   2. the Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification on or before September 21,
      2021;

   3. the Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their
      motion for class certification on or before November 22,
      2021; and

   4. there will be no adjournments of this briefing schedule; and

   5. the parties shall submit a schedule with proposed deadlines
      through trial, including deadlines for expert discovery (if
      any), within 21 days after this Court issues an order
      deciding the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
      certification.

Jaguar Land Rover was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing or assembling of complete
passenger automobile.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gfvkb5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg M. Kohn, Esq.
          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
          E-mail: gkohn@nagelrice.com
                  bnagel@nagelrice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica K. Jacobs, Esq.
          Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Esq.
          Michael L. Kidney, Esq.
          James W. Clayton, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1735 Market Street, Floor 23
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 675-4677
          Facsimile: (267) 675-4601
          E-mail: stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com
                  jessica.jacobs@hoganlovells.com
                  michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com
                  james.clayton@hoganlovells.com

JAPAN INN DORAL: Lopez Slams Illegal Termination Over Sick Leave
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge A. Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Japan Inn Doral, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-22026 (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2021), seeks equitable and monetary
relief to readdress the violations of Lopez's rights pursuant to
the Family Medical Leave Act and the anti-retaliatory provisions
found in Section 2615.

Japan Inn Doral is a Japanese and Thai restaurant in Dade County
where Lopez worked as a server from approximately December 5, 2019,
to January 26, 2021.

On January 3, 2021, Lopez tested positive for COVID-19 and needed
at least 2 weeks of medical leave to treat his serious health
condition and comply with the mandatory State and Federal
quarantine requirements. Lopez took two weeks of unprotected
medical leave.

Immediately after, Lopez's work schedule account was locked out. He
was eventually terminated on January 26, 2021, despite being
eligible to take a leave under the Family Medical Leave Act because
of his qualifying medical condition. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Claims in Potts' 2nd Amended Complaint Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMIE POTTS, KIM MILESZKO, CHRISTINA LUKA, and REBECA
GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a New
Jersey corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 20-10406 (FLW) (D.N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Potts, Mileszko, Luka, and Gonzalez, brought the
consumer fraud-related action against Defendant Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. ("JJCI") in connection with the allegedly deceptive
labeling and advertising of certain Neutrogena-brand makeup remover
cleaning towelettes that purportedly caused adverse skin
reactions.

In their SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that JJCI, the entity
responsible for the labeling and marketing of certain
Neutrogena-brand products, engaged in deceptive practices with
respect to the labeling and advertising of seven "makeup remover
cleansing towelettes."  The SAC alleges that the Products are a
"cosmetic makeup removing product intended to act as a gentle
cleanser that does not irritate the skin but quickly and
effortlessly removes makeup from the face and eyes."  JJCI
allegedly advertises on the Products' labels that the wipes are
"Ophthalmologist tested," "Dermatologist tested," and "Allergy
tested," which, according to the Plaintiffs, creates "the
impression in the minds of consumers that the Products are
ophthalmologist and dermatologist approved, without qualification,
and allergen free."  Further, the Plaintiffs claim that in large,
bolded letters, the Products' labels proclaim that the cleansing
towelettes are, "Gentle enough to use around sensitive eye area,
even for contact lens wearers."

The Plaintiffs allege, however, that "while using the Products as
directed, many consumers have experienced adverse reactions ranging
from irritation and discomfort to peeling, burning, and temporary
or permanent facial scarring."  Specific to them, they aver that
after applying the Products, they, or their daughters, suffered
"adverse skin reactions," including dry skin, rashes, peeling of
the skin and other skin irritation, bumps, burning sensations, and
skin damage around the areas of use.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Products' labels and marketing
were misleading because they failed to include warnings related to
the claimed risk of allergic or adverse skin reactions.  JJCI
allegedly knew of customer complaints about such adverse reactions
and skin irritation experienced by certain product users, but
deliberately chose not to include any warnings on the Products'
labeling.  In that regard, the Plaintiffs allege that,
Neutrogena.com, a website run by JJCI, contains "a litany of
consumer complaints regarding skin irritation, rashes, chemical
burns, peeling, facial disfigurement, and other injuries" from
using the Products.  They claim that JJCI is clearly aware of these
complaints based on the fact that they respond to each negative
review with a request for further information.  These consumer
complaints and responses on Neutrogena.com allegedly date back at
least three years.  The Plaintiffs then claim that in light of such
knowledge, certain representations made by JJCI on the Products'
labeling, or in product marketing, were misleading or deceptive, in
the absence of any warnings.

Despite the alleged adverse skin reactions, the Plaintiffs claim
they would "consider purchasing the Products in the future if the
Products could be made to conform with the affirmative
representations" on the Products' labels and in JJCI's marketing,
or, if the chemical composition of the Products did not change, the
labels and marketing representations "warned that the Products were
not suitable for all skin types, a pre-use patch test was
recommended, and consumers were advised to cease use and consult a
physician if they experienced adverse skin conditions after using
the Products."

The Plaintiffs first filed the action on April 22, 2020, in
California state court, and filed an Amended Complaint on June 19,
2020.  Shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2020, JJCI removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On July 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC, which asserts 10
claims, including: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); (2)
violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sections 17500, et seq. ("FAL"); (3)-(5) violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (6) violation of New York General
Business Law SectionSection 349, et seq.; (7) violation of New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCF"), N.J.S.A. Sections 56:8-1, et
seq.; (8) violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201, et seq.; (9) negligent omission;
and (10) unjust enrichment.

On Aug. 11, 2020, the action was transferred to the Court under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and in the interests of justice. JJCI is a New Jersey
corporation with its principal place of business in Skillman, New
Jersey, while the Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the
states of California, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.  The
Plaintiffs seek certification of a "Nationwide Class," as well as a
"California Subclass," a "New Jersey Subclass," a "New York
Subclass," and a "Florida Subclass."

Presently before the Court is JJCI's motion to dismiss the SAC for
lack of standing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and,
alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

Analysis

A. Standing

On this motion, JJCI argues that the SAC fails to plead facts
sufficient to establish that the Plaintiffs have Article III
standing.  First, with respect to Potts, JJCI contends that prior
to filing suit, Potts received and cashed a refund check from JJCI
for the full purchase price of the Product that allegedly caused an
adverse skin reaction for her and her daughter.  According to JJCI,
this fact deprives Potts of Article III standing on all her claims,
because Potts cannot prove she suffered an injury-in-fact to pursue
monetary relief.

As for the remaining Plaintiffs, JJCI argues that Mileszko, Luka,
and Gonzalez also fail to plead facts sufficient to establish
Article III standing.  Specifically, it submits that it has no
record that Mileszko, Luka, and Gonzalez requested, and were
denied, a refund of the purchase price paid for allegedly defective
products.  Thus, according to JJCI, Mileszko, Luka and Gonzalez
lack Article III standing because their claimed economic loss in
connection with their purchases is not "fairly traceable to the
conduct of the defendants."

In addition, JJCI argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing because
their "price-inflation theory" is too speculative, since they
assert claims on behalf of unidentified persons in jurisdictions
where Plaintiffs do not allege that they suffered any injury.
Finally, JJCI posits that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek
injunctive relief, because they have not established that they are
likely to suffer future injury from JJCI's alleged conduct.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue that "(1) Article III standing
does not require Plaintiffs utilize a privately managed 'refund
program' before seeking legal remedy; (2) even if there was such a
requirement, JJCI deliberately kept the purported 'refund program'
secret and out of public view; (3) the particular circumstances of
each Plaintiff demonstrates that they each have Article III
standing; (4) the Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief to prevent
future harm in spite of their knowledge of potential harm in each
of the jurisdictions; and (5) the Plaintiffs' claims for injunction
relief likewise establish Article III standing."

The Plaintiffs' theory of economic harm is based on their
allegations that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain
due to JJCI's alleged omissions and misrepresentations.  Their
claims can be summarized in the following way: The Plaintiffs
allege that they bought and used Neutrogena face wipes; the wipes
were harmful to them because they suffered rashes, swellings,
peeling skin, and burning sensations after the use of the Products;
and JJCI knew that the Products caused harmful reactions,
purposefully did not list warnings about the alleged risks, and
misrepresented the degree of the Products' safety, thereby
misleading the Plaintiffs into purchasing the Products that they
otherwise would not have, had they been warned.

1. Refunds

As a preliminary matter, in the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that
they suffered physical injuries.  Based on those injuries, they
allege that they purchased Products that did not perform as
advertised, and thus, were worth less than that for which they
bargained.

Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient
factual allegations to permit a fact-finder to conclude that they
suffered at least some modicum of economic injury.  JJCI's argument
that a refund deprives the Plaintiffs of standing is unconvincing
for several reasons, including that a plaintiff's failure to seek
or accept a refund does not preclude standing.

2. Injunctive Relief

Next, JJCI argues that the Plaintiffs cannot seek injunctive
relief, because they were aware of the supposed risks of using the
Products, and therefore, cannot reasonably claim that they are
likely to buy the Products again in the immediate future.  In other
words, JJCI argues that Plaintiffs cannot show an ongoing harm such
that they can seek injunctive relief.

Judge Wolfon agrees.  She opines that the Plaintiffs' alleged
desire to purchase the Products in the future as a means of
establishing the likelihood that they will suffer an ongoing harm,
is pure speculation.  Accordingly, because she finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of
future injury, their request for injunctive relief is struck from
the SAC.

B. Failure to State a Claim

1. Failure-to-Warn and Omission Claims

JJCI contends that the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and omission"
claims6 fail under Rule 12(b)(6) on two grounds.  First, it argues
there is no duty to warn of "rare, idiosyncratic, hypersensitive,
or unusual reactions" to the Products under California, New York,
Florida, and New Jersey law.  Second, it claims the Plaintiffs'
failure-to-warn and omission claims are expressly and impliedly
preempted by federal law.

Judge Wolfson holds she cannot dismiss, at this stage, the
Plaintiffs' claims based on JJCI's proposed theory that because the
alleged unusual reactions are rare, there is no duty to warn
consumers regarding the alleged adverse reactions suffered by the
Plaintiffs, because doing so would go beyond the face of the
pleadings.

2. Preemption

Second, JJCI contends that the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and
omission" claims, found in Counts One through Eight of the SAC, are
expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.

In analyzing JJCI's preemption argument, Judge Wolfson denies
JJCI's motion to dismiss as to the "failure-to-warn and omission"
claims and they will proceed.  JJCI fails to explain how the
Plaintiffs' state law claims require labeling or packaging of a
cosmetic that differs from, or adds to, the federal guidelines.
Moreover, significantly, JJCI has not pointed to any federal
requirements that govern the labeling of their products that
contradict the type of labeling the Plaintiffs seek to impose
through state law.

3. Negligent Omission Claim

Next, JJCI submits that the Plaintiffs' claim for "Negligent
Omission" should be dismissed, because the economic loss rule bars
their claim under the laws of New York, New Jersey, and Florida,
and separately, California law does not recognize "negligent
omission" as a cause of action.  The Plaintiffs, however, in reply,
do not challenge JJCI's argument.  Instead, they ask the Court for
leave to amend their negligent omission claims "to incorporate
contractual theories of recovery upon which a negligent omission
claim may be predicated."  In short, the Plaintiffs have conceded
that failed to sufficiently plead this claim, and therefore, it is
dismissed without prejudice.

4. Unjust Enrichment Claim

Finally, JJCI argues that tje Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
should be dismissed, because it is an equitable relief claim based
on the same allegations as their legal claims, and they have not
shown that they lack an adequate remedy at law.  Relying solely on
New Jersey law, JJCI maintains that dismissal of this claim is
appropriate, because the SAC alleges that each of the named
Plaintiffs purchased the Product from third-party retailers, and
not directly from JJCI.  According to JJCI, this fact prevents the
Plaintiffs from establishing the requisite "direct relationship"
between plaintiff and defendant that New Jersey law demands for any
viable unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiffs may not bring a New Jersey
unjust enrichment claim.  Indeed, JJCI correctly argues that in
order to claim unjust enrichment, New Jersey law requires a direct
relationship between the parties.  The Plaintiffs are consumers who
purchased the Products from third-party retailers, such as CVS
Pharmacy and Costco.  And, there is no dispute that they did not
purchase the cosmetic products directly from JJCI, which is a
manufacturer, not a retailer.  In that respect, the Plaintiffs did
not confer any benefit directly on JJCI.  Hence, they cannot
sustain an unjust enrichment claim under New Jersey law.

Although the Judge is giving the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
unjust enrichment claims pursuant to the laws of California, New
York and Florida -- since they are not adequately pled, and because
JJCI has not addressed the substantive law of these states, as it
did for New Jersey -- when amending, the Plaintiffs are
well-advised that these states differ as to whether a plaintiff
must directly confer a benefit on a defendant in order to
adequately plead an unjust enrichment claim.  The Plaintiffs should
be mindful of the differences in each state's unjust enrichment
law, in order to sufficiently plead them, or whether to bring them
at all based upon whether a claim can be stated.

As a final note, in the SAC, it is unclear if the unjust enrichment
claims are brought solely within each of the proposed subclasses,
or whether the Plaintiffs seek a nationwide class with an unjust
enrichment claim.  If they intend to assert an unjust enrichment
claim on behalf of a nationwide class, they must, in their amended
pleadings, specify upon which states' laws they rely.

Conclusion

Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part JJCI's Motion to
Dismiss as follows: (i) JJCI's motion is denied as to Counts one
through eight, which are the Plaintiffs' "failure-to-warn and
omission" claims; (ii) the motion is granted as to Count Nine,
negligent omission, and Count Ten, unjust enrichment, and those
claims are dismissed without prejudice, with the exception of the
New Jersey unjust enrichment claim, which is dismissed with
prejudice; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
is struck from the SAC.

The Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their negligent omission
and unjust enrichment claims in accordance with the dictates of the
Opinion.  When amending their complaint, they must also clarify
which of the seven products listed in the SAC were purchased and
used by them and/or their children. See infra.  The Third Amended
Complaint must be filed no later than 21 days from the date of the
Order accompanying the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3s3vedjh from Leagle.com.


JUKA INNOVATIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juka Innovations
Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Juka Innovations
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04975 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Juka Innovations Corporation aka The TubShroom Company --
https://www.tubshroom.com/ -- has been providing the world with
award-winning drain protection products for virtually every drain
in the home since 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


LEMON CREEK: Fuel Spill Class Action Suit Gets Second Go-Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Boivin at nelsonstar.com reports that the class action lawsuit
launched by residents of the Slocan Valley after the 2013 fuel
spill in Lemon Creek has been given the go-ahead to go to trial
once more.

Judge D.M. Masuhara ruled on May 21 the lawsuit could go ahead
after changing some of the specifics of the suit to reflect a
higher court decision.

The lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000 litres of jet
fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a delivery to a
firefighting operation. The spill forced thousands of people up to
40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley to evacuate the
area.

The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate
sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days.
Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for
damages.

Masuhara, the chambers judge reviewing the certification, ruled in
2017 the class action could go ahead, the first time such a class
action environmental lawsuit had been approved in British Columbia.
But the defendants in the case – the helicopter company,
fuel-delivery company, the truck driver, and provincial government
- appealed.

The BC Court of Appeal found issue with some of the particulars of
the issues to be decided (called the "common issues"), and
remitted, or sent the matter back, to Masuhara for a
re-determination, according to the higher court's reasons.

After implementing the changes outlined by the Court of Appeal,
Masuhara re-certified the lawsuit as a class action.

"I find that a class proceeding is the preferable mechanism for
resolving the certified common issues," he said in his judgement.

"It was encouraging in that another hurdle was cleared in advancing
the action," says David M. Aaron, one of the lawyers leading the
class-action suit. "Because it would be prohibitive for every class
member to retain the experts that we've retained in the fields of
biology, chemical engineering, and environmental impact. It would
be highly inefficient for there to be thousands of individual
trials each determining the same question of who is at fault for
the transgressions, if any, that resulted in the fuel spill.

"Now that question is going to be determined in one action, in one
court, on behalf of all class members."

The latest hurdle cleared is a big one, but it is very far from
being over. The defendants may appeal this latest decision. Even if
they don't, it may be years before a decision is rendered, and that
decision could face its own appeals.

"The judicial process is often slow and laborious, but that's what
it takes to get things right. We've had to stick to this matter at
the Court of Appeal, and back to the chambers judge, and we're
still only past the procedural question of what the appropriate
modality is for the action," says Aaron.

"Now that has been determined as a class action. We're going to
hold the defendants accountable under that procedure, and it's
important the people of the Slocan Valley and in particular the
members of the class exercise patience.

"Sometimes the wheels of justice move very slowly."

The deadline for appealing this latest decision is June 21. A trial
date won't be set until that period is over. [GN]

LIFEMD INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeMD, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. LifeMD, Inc., Lifemd.Com Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05032 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021).

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

LifeMD, Inc. -- https://www.lifemd.com/ -- operates as a
direct-to-patient telehealth company that connects consumers to
healthcare professionals for care across various indications,
including concierge care, men's sexual health, dermatology, and
others in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUIS MILUSNIC: Seeks to Dissolve July 14-Issued Prelim. Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES, et
al., Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al.,
Defendant-Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant-Respondents ask the Court to enter an order
dissolving the preliminary injunction issued in this matter on July
14, 2020, due to a significant change in facts.

The Respondents have offered the vaccine to all inmates.
Respondents have mitigated to the risk of COVID-19 infection among
FCC Lompoc's inmates to the point where no new cases have occurred
in its general population in over five months. Moreover,
Respondents have performed home confinement reviews of nearly all
the inmates at FCC Lompoc. The preliminary injunction requiring
expedited processing of home release evaluations and compassionate
release requests due to the risk of COVID-19 no longer serves a
purpose.

A copy of the Defendant-Respondents motion dated May 25, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x7te47 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Respondents Louis Milusnic and Michael
Carvajal, are:

          Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq.
          David M. Harris, Esq.
          Joanne S. Osinoff, Esq.
          Keith M. Staub, Esq.
          Paul B. La Scala, Esq.
          Chung H. Han, Esq.
          Daniel A. Beck, Esq.
          Jasmin Yang, Esq.
          Paul B. Green, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          Federal Building, Suite 7516
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-7423
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
          E-mail: Keith.Staub@usdoj.gov
                  Chung.Han@usdoj.gov
                  Paul.LaScala@usdoj.gov
                  Daniel.Beck@usdoj.gov
                  Jasmin.Yang@usdoj.gov
                  Paul.Green@usdoj.gov

LOUISIANA: Bid to Dismiss Plaisance Class Suit Junked
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plaisance, et al., v.
State of Louisiana et al, Case No. 3:21-cv-00121 (M.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order:

   1. denying the Motion to Dismiss, filed by Louisiana Workforce
      Commission and Ava Dejoie;

   2. denying as moot the Motion to Stay Discovery and Hearing on
      Preliminary Injunction Pending Defendants Motion to Dismiss;

      and

   3. directing the parties to confer and file a joint proposed
      limited schedule related to class certification.

"Joint proposed limited schedule due by June 7, 2021 and limited to
three pages. Any disagreements shall be reflected in the joint
filing, i.e., no party is permitted to file a separate proposed
schedule," says Judge Wilder-Doomes.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico. Its
history as a melting pot of French, African, American and
French-Canadian cultures is reflected in its Creole and Cajun
cultures.[CC]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Levine Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Theressa C. Levine, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00278 (E.D. Tex., June 5,
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:

          James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MILKY WAY INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milky Way
International Trading Corporation. The case is styled as Jose
Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Milky Way International Trading Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04984
(S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Milky Way International Trading Corporation doing business as MW
Polar Foods -- https://www.mwpolar.net/ -- is a food production
company based out of Norwalk, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MINERAL HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v.
Mineral Health Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04845 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 1, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Mineral Health is an online retailer of plant-based medicine
formulated around the hemp plant, including sublingual oils, facial
cleaners, body oils, supplements and similar items through
www.mineralhealth.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that
said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


MINUTE MEDIA: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minute Media LLC. The
case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Minute Media LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03195 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2021).

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

Minute Media -- https://www.minutemedia.com/ -- is a global,
digital, sports media company, powered by socially driven
content.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


MONTGOMERY, AL: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDARESS CARTER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Royce C. Lamberth
entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Mr. Carter moved to certify four classes: a City class, a JCS
Bearden subclass, a Kloess subclass, and a false-imprisonment
class.

   1. City Class consists of:

      "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on
      JCS-supervised probation, who (1) had debt commuted to jail
      time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the court

      to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on

      or after August 3, 2013."

   2. JCS Bearden Subclass consists of:

      "all individuals in the City Class who served any of their
      post-commutation jail time on or after September 11, 2013."

   3. Kloess Subclass consists of:

      "all individuals in the City Class whose debt was commuted to

      jail time on a date when Branch Kloess was the public
      defender assigned to the jail docket or for whom Benchmark
      court records or other documents indicate the individuals
s      were represented by Branch Kloess for the commutation."

   4. False-Imprisonment Class consists of:

      "all individuals the Montgomery Municipal Court placed on
      JCS-supervised probation, who (1) had debt commuted to jail
      time in a JCS-supervised case after JCS petitioned the court

      to revoke probation; and (2) served any of that jail time on

      or after September 11, 2009."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pnwe9O at no extra charge.[CC]


NCAA: Baker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dan Baker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01537-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 4, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Racanelli Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Pasquale Racanelli,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01536-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., June 4, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NEC NETWORKS: Accused of Failing to Safeguard PHI and PII
---------------------------------------------------------
D.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. NEC NETWORKS, LLC. d/b/a CAPTURERX, and WALMART INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00363-SRB (W.D. Mo., May 25, 2021), is brought to redress
the Defendants' willful and reckless violations of their privacy
rights by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal
health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information
(PII) and publicly disclosing their PHI and PII without
authorization in violation of Missouri common law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Class
Members are patients of CaptureRx who entrusted their PHI and PII
to the Defendants. The Defendants betrayed the Plaintiffs' trust by
failing to properly safeguard and protect their PHI and PII and
publicly disclosing their PHI and PII without authorization in
violation of Missouri common law.

This action pertains to the Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of
the the Plaintiff's PHI and PII that occurred on or about February
6, 2021 (the "Breach"). The Defendants disclosed Plaintiff's and
the other Class Members' PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a
direct and/or proximate result of the Defendant's failure to
safeguard and protect their PHI and PII. The wrongfully disclosed
PHI and PII included, inter alia, Plaintiff's and the other Class
Members' first name, last name, date of birth, and prescription
information.

The Defendants flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally,
willfully and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions
required to safeguard and protect the Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult residing in Lowry City, St. Clair County,
Missouri.

The Defendants are health care providers pursuant to state and
federal law, providing health care and medical services to the
general public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Luedecke , Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 nick@mcshanebradylaw.com

               - and -

          Anne Schiavone, Esq.
          HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC.
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 283-8738
          Facsimile: (816) 283-8739
          Email: aschiavone@hslawllc.com


NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Reichert Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan M. Reichert, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Netgain Technology,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-01300-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., May 28,
2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard
the confidential, personally identifiable information of hundreds
of thousands of consumers.

The complaint asserts that in late September 2020, and due to
Netgain's inadequate data security and failure to comply with
federal and state data privacy standards, an unauthorized third
party used compromised credentials to gain access to Netgain's
digital environment. Although the information stolen may vary by
individual class member, the categories included names, account
numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank
account numbers, and dates of birth (PII), as well as personal
health information such as medical record numbers, health insurance
policy and identification numbers, clinical notes, referral
requests, laboratory results, immunization information, medical
disclosure logs, in addition to other medical and health related
information (PHI).

Due to Netgain's alleged negligence and inadequate data security,
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered irreparable harm and are
subject to an increased risk of identity theft, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff and Class members' PII and PHI have been compromised and
they must now undertake additional security measures to minimize
the risk of identity theft.

Netgain Technology, LLC provides cloud-enabled IT solutions and
managed services to various types of business entities including
healthcare providers and accounting companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          17 Washington Ave. N., Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                  crenz@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
                  aregan@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Savage Sues Over Sale to Microsoft
---------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Savage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Lloyd Carney, Mark
Benjamin, Daniel Brennan, Thomas Ebling, Robert Finocchio, Laura
Kaiser, Michal Katz, Mark Laret and Sanjay Vaswani, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-00776 (D. Del., May 28, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Nuance
by Microsoft Corporation through its subsidiary Big Sky Merger Sub
Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Nuance stockholder
will be entitled to receive $56.00 in cash for each share of Nuance
common stock they own.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement, which recommends
that Nuance stockholders vote in favor of the merger, omits or
misrepresents the company's financial projections and the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Nuance's financial advisor, Evercore
Group LLC and Evercore's potential conflicts of interest.

Nuance is a provider of conversational AI and cloud-based ambient
clinical intelligence for healthcare providers.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      LONG LAW, LLC
      3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 729-9100
      Email: BDLong@longlawde.com

             - and -

      Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (646) 860-9158
      Fax: (212) 214-0506
      Email: raymond@bespc.com


OHIO: Bids to Dismiss & for Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANSELM CADDELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOYCE CAMPBELL,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-91 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas
R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, entered Order denying:

    (i) Defendant Joyce Campbell's Motion to Dismiss;

   (ii) Defendant Richard Jones's Motion for Judgment on the
        Pleadings; and

  (iii) Defendant The City of Fairfield's Motion for Partial
        Judgment on the Pleadings.

On Feb. 23, 2017, an Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper, without a
warrant, stopped Plaintiff Caddell for an alleged traffic
violation.  Fairfield Police Department personnel also responded to
the scene.  After a brief investigation, Caddell was arrested.
Caddell alleges that "pursuant to the policies and customs of
Defendant Fairfield," officers transported him to the Butler County
Jail, where he remained without bond or appearance before a
judicial officer until Feb. 28, 2017.  That day, he appeared before
the Fairfield Municipal Court, specifically Fairfield Municipal
Judge Joyce Campbell.  Judge Campbell released Caddell on his own
recognizance.  The five-day delay between arrest and arraignment
provides the basis for Caddell's suit.

Mr. Caddell filed a Complaint on Feb. 1, 2019, followed shortly
thereafter by an Amended Complaint on Feb. 18, 2019.  On July 23,
2020, Caddell submitted a Second Amended Complaint, which "added
Caleb Lawson as a Plaintiff, but made no other substantive
changes."  In the Second Amended Complaint, he asserts a claim
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the five-day detention in the
Butler County Jail violated his constitutional rights under the
Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Plaintiff also seeks class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23, and defines the putative class as "individuals subject to a
warrantless arrest and detained for more than 48 hours without
appearance before a judicial officer pursuant to the policies or
customs of the Defendants during the two years prior to the filing
of the Class Action Complaint."

The Second Amended Complaint names Joyce Campbell (an active
Fairfield Municipal Court Judge) and Richard Jones (the Butler
County Sheriff) as Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities.  Caddell asserts that they "were aware, or should have
been aware of the constitutional mandate that individuals be
provided an appearance before a judicial officer within 48 hours of
arrest."

Regarding Campbell, Caddell claims that she is "the sole judicial
officer and presiding judge" of the Fairfield Municipal Court, as
well as that court's "policymaker."  And he asserts that "Campbell
in her individual capacity fails to conduct arraignments such that
some detained individuals are held in custody for more than 48
hours in violation of their clearly established rights."  Caddell
also alleges that Campbell supervises the business of the court and
exercises control over the "administration, docket, and calendar of
the court."  He brings his claims against Campbell "in her
individual capacity for purposes of damages, and in her official
capacity for purposes of prospective relief."

As for Jones, Caddell claims he is the "policymaker for the Butler
County Sheriff's Office" and "operates the Butler County Jail,"
including "a patrol division empowered to arrest and detain
individuals throughout Butler County."  Caddell claims that Jones
is responsible for policies and customs that violate the right to a
prompt initial appearance for individuals detained after a
warrantless arrest. In particular, Caddell asserts that Jones
maintains "policies or customs whereby the officers of his force
transport certain individuals arrested without warrant to the
Butler County Jail," notwithstanding that they "know, or reasonably
should know, that many of these individuals will be detained in
excess of 48 hours without appearance before a judicial officer."

Mr. Caddell also sues the City of Fairfield under a municipal
liability theory.  As with Jones, he asserts that the municipality
likewise "employs policies or customs" involving transporting
arrestees to Butler County Jail that they "know, or reasonably
should know" will result in individuals being detained for a
constitutionally impermissible period.

After Caddell filed his First Amended Complaint (which was
identical to the Second Amended Complaint as to each aspect
described), each Defendant filed a motion challenging that
Complaint in its entirety.

The City of Fairfield moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim.  The City argued (1) that Caddell
failed to allege any causal relationship between (a) the City, or
any City policy or custom, and (b) Caddell's alleged
over-detention, and (2) that, as a matter of law, the City is not
responsible for how the Fairfield Municipal Court operates.

Judge Campbell moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  She pressed four arguments: (1)
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes Caddell's claims; (2)
judicial immunity bars any claim predicated on her role in
Caddell's underlying criminal case; (3) in terms of Caddell's
claims directed at her alleged policymaking role, she is entitled
to qualified immunity because the obligation to bring detainees
before a judicial officer falls on the detaining authority, which
she was not alleged to be; and (4) sovereign immunity precludes
claims brought against her in her administrative capacity because
she acts as an arm of the state in that role.

For his part, Jones moved for judgment on the pleadings.  He
claimed that the duty to secure a prompt probable cause
determination falls solely on "the arresting officer," and that
neither he nor anyone on his force played that role here, as his
only alleged role was as jailor.  Relatedly, he argued that Caddell
failed to articulate a causal connection between any Butler County
policy and his alleged over-detention.  Finally, Jones argued that,
even if a jailor may have some responsibility for securing a prompt
appearance, that legal proposition is not "clearly established,"
and thus he is entitled to qualified immunity.

At some level, each Defendant disclaims responsibility for
Caddell's over-detention on the grounds that such responsibility
should lie elsewhere -- (a) the City, which may have employed the
arresting officer, says responsibility should lie with the County
which acted as jailor; (b) the County Sheriff, who acted as jailor,
says responsibility should lie either with the arresting officer or
the Court (as the jailor delivered Caddell at the first available
court date); and (c) the Court says responsibility should lie with
the "detaining authority," which could presumably be a reference
either to the arresting officer (who initiated the detention), or
the jailor (who was maintaining the detention).

Mr. Caddell opposed these motions on the merits, and he also moved
to strike Jones' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground
that it was premature.

The cause is technically before the Court on consideration of two
separate Report and Recommendations (each an "R&R") that the
Magistrate Judge filed in the matter.  The Magistrate Judge issued
the first Report and Recommendation on Feb. 12, 2020 ("First R&R").
There, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the Defendants'
various motions to terminate this matter at the pleading stage.
Defendants Joyce Campbell, Richard Jones, and the City of Fairfield
each filed separate Objections to that R&R.

But, while consideration of the First R&R was pending, the
Magistrate Judge granted Caddell leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint, technically mooting the First R&R and corresponding
Objections.  The Second Amended Complaint, however, merely added an
additional plaintiff, and did not meaningfully change the
underlying allegations.  Thus, the Defendants essentially refiled
the same motions that they had filed against the previous version
of the Complaint.

On Sept. 16, 2020, the Magistrate Judge, concluding that no new
analysis was necessary, issued a short second Report and
Recommendation ("Second R&R").  In the Second R&R, she adopted the
reasoning of the First R&R as applied to the Second Amended
Complaint.  Because the Defendants' Objections to her analysis were
already on file as to the First R&R, the Magistrate Judge also
ordered no new objections be filed as to the Second R&R.

Law and Analysis

I. The Second R&R Correctly Dismissed The Defendants' Motions
Regarding The First Amended Complaint As Moot.

To start, Judge agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination
that the Plaintiffs' filing of a Second Amended Complaint moots the
First R&R, as well as the motions that the First R&R addressed and
the Defendants' related Objections.  Accordingly, he adopts the
Second R&R's recommendation that the Court finds the motions
relating to the First Amended Complaint and the First R&R itself
all to be moot.  Thus, he dismisses as moot: (1) Defendants the
City of Fairfield and Joyce Campbell's Motions to Dismiss; (2)
Defendant Jones' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; (3)
Plaintiff Caddell's Motion to Strike; and (4) the Defendants'
Objections to the First R&R.  But the Judge nonetheless considers
the Defendants' Objections, as applied to the Second R&R, which
adopts the reasoning of the First R&R.

II. The Defendants' Instant Motions Opposing Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint Advance The Same Arguments Regarding The First
Amended Complaint And The First R&R.

Each of the three Defendants sought dismissal of all claims against
them as a matter of law.  The Magistrate Judge recommends denying
each of their motions.  And each Defendant separately objects to
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in that regard.  Thus, Judge
Cole considers each Defendant separately, but reaches the same
conclusion as to all -- their Objections are not well taken at this
stage of the litigation.

A. The Court Denies Defendant Joyce Campbell's Motion To Dismiss.

While it is not clear that Campbell's Objection meets that test as
to any arguments other than qualified immunity, Judge Cole
nonetheless considers each of the arguments for dismissal she
asserted.  These include whether: (1) "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
precludes this Court from reviewing Caddell's claims against
Campbell; (2) Campbell "is entitled to absolute judicial immunity"
regarding "her role in Caddell's underlying criminal case"; (3)
Campbell should receive qualified immunity; and (4) Campbell "is
entitled to qualified and sovereign immunity" for claims involving
"her alleged policymaking role."

Given the nature of the claims asserted, Judge Cole opines that
none of those defenses work at this stage of the litigation.
First, the Magistrate Judge correctly rejected Campbell's
Rooker-Feldman argument because Caddell "is not seeking review of
any judgment rendered by Judge Campbell."  Second, Campbell has not
established that judicial immunity bars Caddell's Section 1983
claim.  Third, Judge Cole agrees with the Magistrate Judge's
determination that Campbell's qualified immunity defense falls
short, at least absent more facts about Campbell's responsibility
for the alleged courthouse policy and details about the alleged
customs and policies that gave rise to asserted County of Riverside
v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991 violations for arrestees
adjudicated by the Fairfield Municipal Court.  Lastly, the
Fairfield Municipal Court is an arm of the State, and thus an
official-capacity claim against Judge Campbell (an employee of the
State) for money damages would be an impermissible claim against
the State.

B. The Court Denies Defendant Richard Jones's Motion For Judgment
On The Pleadings.

Like Judge Campbell, Sheriff Jones also objects to the Magistrate
Judge's determination that Caddell's claims can proceed against
him.  According to Jones, Caddell cannot plead a Riverside claim
against him, as the obligation under Riverside runs to the
arresting officer, not the jailor.  Accordingly, even if Jones has
"customs or policies" in place that led to over-detention, Jones
contends that he cannot be liable under Section 1983 for those
policies, especially when someone not on his force was the
arresting officer.  Separately, he argues that even if a jailor
could bear legal liability in that setting, it was not clearly
established that a jailor could, and thus qualified immunity is
warranted.

Judge Cole disagrees.  He agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Jones' theory that a sheriff cannot be liable for a Riverside
violation is unavailing.  He therefore denies Jones' Motion to the
extent it argues that, as a jailor, he is not liable as a matter of
law.  To succeed on his qualified immunity defense, on the other
hand, Jones must establish that Cadell failed to allege that
Jones's "conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly
established law at the time," citing Courtright v. City of Battle
Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2016).  Under that standard, the
Judge finds that Caddell has alleged enough to proceed past the
pleadings stage.

C. The Court Denies Defendant The City Of Fairfield's Motion For
Partial Judgment On The Pleadings.

As with the other Defendants, the City of Fairfield's basic
argument is that, as a matter of law, it cannot bear responsibility
for the alleged Riverside violation.  That is so, it claims,
because the arresting officer was the City's agent (as the arrest
record shows that it was Trooper York of the Ohio State Highway
Patrol who arrested Caddell), nor is the City is not responsible
for operating the Fairfield Municipal Courts (which is the court
that provided Caddell's hearing).

The Magistrate reached a contrary conclusion on that question, and
Judge Cole agrees.  As he did in response to the other Defendants'
arguments, the Judge concludes that the City errs in asserting
that, as a matter of law, only the arresting officer can bear
responsibility for a Riverside violation.  The violation does not
arise from the arrest itself, but rather from the detention that
follows after the arrest.  The question, then, is which entity
should bear responsibility for the length of that detention.

It is not clear who decided where Caddell would be transported
after arrest, nor who undertook that transport, nor what the
municipality knew about the length of the detention that would
follow from taking Caddell to the Butler County Jail (if it was in
fact a municipal agent who made that decision pursuant to some
official custom or policy).  What is more, Caddell's operative
Complaint squarely alleges that the City of Fairfield "employs
policies or customs whereby the officers of its police forces
transport certain individuals arrested without a warrant to the
Butler County Jail.  Based on these allegations, the City of
Fairfield cannot show that Caddell's claims fail at the dismissal
stage.

Separately, the City of Fairfield argues that Sixth Circuit
precedent requires finding, as a matter of law, that a municipality
cannot be liable for a municipal court's conduct because those
courts are arms of the State, and are thus shielded by the Eleventh
Amendment.  It cites Ward v. City of Norwalk, 640 F. App'x 462, 464
(6th Cir. 2016), for the proposition that a municipal court "is
considered an arm of the state for the purposes of Section 1983."
And the City of Fairfield faults the Magistrate for not applying
that case.

On this point, Judge Cole agrees with the City of Fairfield.  In
Ward, the Sixth Circuit followed Alkire to conclude that the
Norwalk Municipal Court is an arm of the State of Ohio.  Thus the
City of Fairfield cannot be liable based on any customs or policies
that the Fairfield Municipal Court adopted.  Still, as noted, the
City of Fairfield faces potential liability for the Fairfield
Police Department's polices and customs.  And that provides a
separate, independent basis for municipal liability.  Thus, Judge
Cole ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the City of
Fairfield is not entitled to dismissal.

Conclusion

Judge Cole adopts the Second R&R.  Accordingly, he denies the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; the Defendants' Motions for
Judgment on the Pleadings; the Defendants' Objections to the First
R&R; and the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.  The City of Fairfield,
however, is not responsible for actions taken by the Fairfield
Municipal Court and thus cannot be found liable on that basis.  The
Judge denies the City of Fairfield's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as it relates to municipal liability stemming from the
Fairfield City Police Department's customs and policies.  Finally,
Defendants Campbell and Jones' Motions, as pertaining to qualified
immunity, sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, are denies, but without prejudice to the
Defendants' ability to re-raise the immunity issues on a more fully
developed factual record.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j4733ca7 from Leagle.com.


OKONITE COMPANY: Court OKs Parrish Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Walter Parrish v. The
Okonite Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-09000-JFW-JC (C.D. Calif.),
the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court says many of the issues raised by the Defendant are more
appropriately raised on a motion for summary judgment (and should
have been raised in a motion to dismiss), and do not justify a
denial of the motion for class certification. The Court signs, as
modified, the Plaintiff's Proposed Statement of Decision on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, lodged with the Court
on May 20, 2021.

On April 14, 2021, the Plaintiff Parrish filed a Motion for Class
Certification. On April 26, 2021, the Defendant Okonite filed its
Opposition. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to
Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
7-15, the Court found the matter appropriate for submission on the
papers without oral argument. The matter was, therefore, removed
from the Court's May 17, 2021 hearing calendar and the parties were
given advance notice. After considering the moving, opposing, and
reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as
follows: Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a
"rigorous analysis" to determine whether the party seeking
certification has met the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc. 253 F. 3d
1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.
2001). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of
demonstrating that the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least
one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) have been satisfied.

The Okonite Company is an American manufacturer of insulated wire
and cable.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RrXyHi at no extra charge.[CC]

OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard P. Parducci, as
conservator for and on behalf of Margarett Parducci and as Trustee
of the JOHN A. PARDUCCI AND MARGARETT L. PARDUCCI SURVIVOR'S TRUST
dated December 28, 1987, v. Overland Solutions, Inc., AMCO
Insurance Company and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:18-cv-07162-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification,
and related briefs, in this case, as follows:

                                   Current Date   Proposed New
Date

   Plaintiff's Motion for Class    May 31, 2021     June 8, 2021
   Certification (incl.
   disclosure of any supporting
   experts)

   Defendants' Response (incl.     July 19, 2021    Aug. 3, 2021
   disclosure of any opposing
   experts)

   Plaintiff's Reply               Aug. 9, 2021     Aug. 24, 2021

Overland Solutions provides insurance underwriting support
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUiRuG
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Attila Panczel, Esq.
          Joseph John Turri, Esq.
          INSURANCE LITIGATORS & COUNSELORS, PLC.
          419-J Talmage Road
          Ukiah, CA 95482
          Telephone: (707) 462-6117
          Facsimile: (707) 230-5525
          E-mail: insterminator@aol.com
                  insterminator@aol.com

               - and -

          Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
          1308 Main Street, Suite 117
          Saint Helena, CA 94574
          Telephne: (707) 963-1704
          E-mail: lgpapale@papalelaw.com

               - and -

          Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL,
          YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: cgipson@mtattorneys.com

PETROBRAS COMPENSATION: Dutch Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2021, the District Court in Rotterdam ruled that
Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation (SPCF or Foundation)
has standing to pursue declaratory relief in the Netherlands on
behalf of global investors who purchased shares on the Brasil Bolsa
Balcao S.A. or B3 - Brazil (formerly BM&FBOVESPA) and linked
markets in the European Union as well as certain bonds prior to
July 28, 2015.

The May 26 ruling effectively denies the Defendants' attempt to
dismiss the litigation before having to argue the merits of the
case. The litigation will now focus on the merits of the case and
whether Petrobras violated applicable laws, thus causing damage to
shareholders. In 2014 and 2015 it was revealed that, for many
years, Petrobras made fraudulent and misleading statements to
investors regarding (i) the company's books and records, (ii) the
valuation of company assets, and (iii) the associated bribery and
kickback schemes uncovered by Brazilian Federal law enforcement
agencies in 2014 - the widely reported Lava Jato scandal.

The key takeaways from the May 26 ruling in Rotterdam are:

The Court rejects Petrobras Defendants' argument that Petrobras
investors cannot seek relief in the Netherlands due to an
arbitration clause in Petrobras' articles of association.

The Court in Rotterdam takes particular issue with the disingenuous
attempts by Petrobras to argue in the Netherlands that investors
should pursue their rights through arbitration in Brazil whilst
arguing in Brazilian arbitration that the same arbitration clause
does not permit investors to seek relief through arbitration.

The Court noted how a broad interpretation of the arbitration
clause would result in the shareholders being denied access to an
independent national court.

The Court ruled that Petrobras investors who are currently actively
engaged in arbitration proceedings or separate litigation for the
same facts in Brazil or elsewhere are excluded from the global
class of investors for whom the Foundation in the Netherlands
litigates.

The Court has set a date of September 1, 2021 for the Foundation to
submit its further arguments and facts regarding the merits of the
case and specifically the arguments that support the Foundation's
allegations that Petrobras violated investors' rights under
applicable securities laws.

For more information on the May 26 ruling, please visit
www.pbcompensation.com or send an e-mail to
board@pbcompensation.com [GN]

PFA INSURANCE: June 29 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: PFA INSURANCE MARKETING
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-03771-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Parties
stipulate and ask Court issue an Order adjusting the schedule as to
class certification as follows:

                  Event                    Proposed Deadline

   Deadline to File Opposition              June 29, 2021
   to Class Certification:

   Deadline to File Reply on                July 23, 2021
   Class Certification:

   Deadline for Hearing Motion              August 24, 2021
   for Class Certification:

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ilCGMS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Class Counsel are:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Sylvain Frayer, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sfrayer@girardsharp.com

The Attorney for Defendant Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., is:

          Michael J. Hassen, Esq.
          REALLAW, APC
          1981 N. Broadway, Suite 280
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 359-7500
          Facsimile: (925) 557-7690
          E-mail: MJHassen@reallaw.us

The Attorneys for the Defendant Life Insurance Company of the
Southwest, are:

          Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
          Rachel Adi Naor, Esq.
          Tania L. Rice, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          560 Mission St., Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          E-mail: bo.phillips@alston.com
                  tom.evans@alston.com
                  rachel.naor@alston.com
                  tania.rice@alston.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Gun Owners Slam Delay in Gun License Release
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Owners of America Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Jack Breslow,
Daniel Enden, Devon Pirestani, Sasson Aaron Soffer and Luke
Sturgis, on behalf of themselves and the class of any person who
has applied for a License to Carry Firearms in Philadelphia but has
not yet received their license or a denial thereof, Plaintiffs v.
City of Philadelphia and Commissioner Danielle M. Outlaw,
Defendant, Defendants, Case No. 210502725 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, June 1,
2021), seek immediate relief from the City's refusal to timely
issue licenses to carry firearms and further to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin Philadelphia to "issue or refuse" all licenses
within the 45 days pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1702, 1708, and 1709.

According to the complaint, the City of Philadelphia refused to
timely accept applications, but instead created an "appointment"
process to allow applicants to drop off their one-page License to
Carry Firearms applicant. After a Motion for Peremptory Judgment,
the City and Commissioner Outlaw decided to accept applications via
email, providing Plaintiffs the relief sought in the lawsuit.
However, Defendants have now simply shifted their illegal process
by, instead of making individuals wait months to drop-off their
application, they are trying to make approved applicants wait
months to pick-up their physical license, adds the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew B. Austin, Esq.
      P.O. Box # 54628
      Philadelphia, PA 19148
      Tel: (610) 656-1956
      Email: austin@stackhousegroup.com


PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) investors
that acquired shares between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021.
Investors have until June 28, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click https://portnoylaw.com/pinterest/
to join the case.

It is alleged in the complaint that during the Class Period,
Pinterest made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was
approaching its maximum capacity; (2) which significantly
decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average
revenue per user; (3) Pinterest's risk of losing advertising
revenue was increasing; and (4) at all relevant times, Pinterest's
public statements were materially misleading and false, or lacked a
reasonable basis and omitted material facts, as a result.

On October 31, 2019, post-market, Pinterest reported its third
quarter financial results for 2019. Pinterest reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S.
year-over-year MAUs, which had reached 87 million, only 8 million
more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also
missed their expected US advertising revenue targets. Pinterest's
guidance was only marginally increased, which implied further
deceleration in future quarters.

Pinterest's stock price fell approximately 17% on this news, to
close at $20.86 per share on November 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading value.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 28,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

PIZZA ON STONE: Oct. 1 Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Velazquez, et al., v.
Pizza on Stone, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09087-PGG-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the
deadline for the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Class Certification Motion be
extended to October 1, 2021.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Sdm5jG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          www.fslawfirm.com
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333

PORSCHE CARS: Court OKs Extension of Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL XU and DANIEL
VAZ-POCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00510-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Amy Totenberg entered an order granting joint motion to extend
deadlines:

                                         Previous        New
                                         Deadline      Deadline

   Plaintiffs' motion for class      June 11, 2021   Sept. 9, 2021
   certification and defendant's
   motion for summary judgment on
   plaintiffs' individual claims:

   The Defendant's response to       Sept. 10, 2021  Dec. 9, 2021
   plaintiffs' motion for class
   and plaintiffs' response to
   defendant's motion for summary
   judgment on plaintiffs'
   individual claims:

   The Plaintiffs' reply brief       Nov. 12, 2021   March 9, 2022
   in support of motion
   for class certification
   and defendant's reply brief
   in Support of motion for
   summary judgment on plaintiffs'
   individual claims:

Porsche Cars North America Inc. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is
headquartered in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fXArxZ at no extra charge.[CC]

PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Suit Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
tcpaworld.com reports that well the mortgage vertical is certainly
in the plaintiff's bar's crosshairs these days.

As we've been reporting, a string of new class actions have been
filed targeting the practices of mortgage lenders with respect to
their marketing text message campaigns.

In the latest such suit - this one against Premier Mortgage, LLC -
the Plaintiff claim she was texted 9 times after advising the
lender she was not interested in any mortgage products. She also
contends she never solicited information about a mortgage to begin
with. This is true (allegedly) although her number was on the DNC
list.

Notably the complaint seeks recovery for both DNC violations and
for violations of the TCPA's ATDS provisions–Plaintiff alleges an
ATDS was used with the ability to store numbers using a R&SNG.
We'll see how those allegations hold up.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent three classes:

Robocalling Class: All persons in the United States who, within
four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until
trial, received one or more telemarketing call on their cellular
telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing, made via
the same system(s) used to call the Plaintiffs.

Policy Class: All persons in the United States who, within four
years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial,
received two or more telemarketing call on their residential
landline or cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier
Marketing.

National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this
litigation until trial, received two or more telemarketing call on
their residential landline or cellular telephone number from or on
behalf of Premier Marketing to a telephone number that was
registered with the NDNCR for more than 30 days at the time of each
call.

The case is brought by the ever-dangerous Avi Kaufman AND the
original Wolf of TCPAWorld, Anthony Paronich. [GN]

PROMPT NURSING: Judge Awards $1.56 Million in Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
staffingindustry.com reports that a federal judge in New York ruled
in a class action lawsuit that staffing firm Prompt Nursing
Employment Agency LLC, which does business as Sentosa Services, and
owner Berish Rubenstein must pay $1.56 million in compensatory
damages plus interest for breach of contract to a group of nurses
from the Philippines, according to court records.

Judge Nina Gershon previously found Prompt Nursing and Rubenstein
liable for breach of contract in September 2019 for failing to pay
the nurses a base salary in accordance with the prevailing wage.
The judge also found the company, Rubenstein and other defendants
violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Prompt Nursing brought the nurses to the US from the Philippines
under a contract that would have charged the nurses $25,000.

In addition to the breach of contract, the judge ruled the company,
Rubenstein and other defendants liable for $1.56 million plus
interest for violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
However, class members may recover damages from breach of contract
or violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, but not
both.

Also, the judge did not rule in favor of punitive damages, instead
allowing the question to go to trial.

The Philippines Star newspaper reported the suit was brought by
Rose Ann Paguirigan in March 2017 and included more than 200 nurses
recruited in the Philippines to work at nursing homes in New York.
It reported Paguirigan presented evidence the nurses were not paid
the prevailing wages promised in employment contracts. In addition,
she presented evidence that nursing homes and recruiters used
threats of serious harm to keep nurses from leaving, including the
$25,000 termination fee.[GN]

PURECYCLE TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle") (NASDAQ:
PCT) between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16522&wire=5

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


PureCycle Technologies, Inc. NEWS - PCT NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the technology
PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents
serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the
availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to
commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (iii)
PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
PureCycle, you have until July 12, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased PureCycle securities between
November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16522&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]

PURELY ELIZABETH: Meraz Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA MERAZ and SHARYN BUKSBAUM, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves, the general public and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PURELY ELIZABETH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-04091-LB (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) seeks redress for the
Defendant's deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of its
Purely Elizabeth oats, bread and muffin mixes, oatmeal, pancake and
waffle mixes, and granola, in violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the False Advertising, Business and Professions Code,
and the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently labels on the
front of their product packages that the products provide specific
amounts of protein per serving depending on the product, such as "7
protein" on the label of its Vanilla Pecan Collagen Protein Oats.
Consumers like Plaintiffs, in turn, reasonably expect that each
product will provide the actual amount of protein per serving. In
truth, however, the products do not deliver the amount of protein
that the labels claim. Based on amino acid content testing, the
products allegedly contain up to 25% less protein than claimed,
meaning, for example, rather than having 7 grams of protein per
serving, the Vanilla Pecan Collagen Protein Oats product actually
has only 6 grams.

The products prominently make protein content claims but fail to
provide the required percent daily value of protein in the
nutrition facts panel, the suit added.

Purely Elizabeth LLC manufactures, distributes, markets,
advertises, and sells in the United States a variety of consumer
food products under the brand name "Purely Elizabeth," including
oats, oatmeal, pancake and waffle mixes, and granola.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111

QUAPAW HOUSE: Schatz Seeks to Certify Class of Former Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA SCHATZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
QUAPAW HOUSE, INC.; CASEY BRIGHT, Case. No. 5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
Class of:

   "all Putative Plaintiffs who were employees of Quapaw House,
   Inc. and/or Casey Bright since January 1, 2020 who suffered
   nonpayment of wages upon and subsequent to termination and
   improper deductions from select wages actually paid."

Quapaw House is a hospital & health care company.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George M. Rozzell IV, Esq.
          Kristin Pawlik, Esq.
          MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER
          PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC
          112 W. Center St.
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 621-0006
          E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com
                  kpawlik@arkattorneys.com

ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Order to 1st Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JIMMY SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Jimmy Smith, Plaintiff v. American Bar
Association, Roger Williams Law School, United States Department of
Education, Francis X Flaherty, Jared Goldstein, Jonathan Gutoff,
Jenna Wims Hashway, Olivia Milonas, Tanya Monesteir, William E.
Smith, Michael Yelonsky, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00133-PJB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island,
Providence.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2021, the
lawsuit arose after Roger Williams Law School (RWU) purposely gave
the Plaintiff unfair hearing and edited the Zoom hearing video so
that his rights on appeal were not as live.

According to the complaint, RWU Law's Honor Board Process is
supposed to be confidential but RWU either through indifference or
purposeful action can never keep it secret. As the only law school
in the state, they have a duty to make sure their hearings are fair
and information is not leaked.

Mr. Smith says that Roger Williams did not provide a fair hearing
to him during the honor board process and subjected him to
expulsion without an adequate opportunity to defend himself. His
complaints were dismissed arbitrarily. He adds that RWU Law has
failed to recruit and hire adequate racial minority faculty and the
U.S. Department of Education and American Bar Association should
never have funded them after the "Ralph Pappito incident." The OCR
investigation procedure is discriminatory on its face, he said.
Persons with certain disabilities cannot possibly file a complaint,
says the suit.   

The Plaintiff now appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit from a TEXT ORDER as fully given by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which states that
"All pending motions are denied without prejudice. This matter is
referred to the Magistrate Judge who shall hold a status conference
and establish a schedule for the filing of pretrial motions."

The appellate case is captioned as Smith v. Roger Williams Law
School, et al., Case No. 21-1435, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 30, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JIMMY SMITH, of Bristol, Rhode Island, appears
pro se.

Defendants-Appellees ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW and US
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION are represented by:

          Steven M. Richard, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          1 Citizens Plaza, 5th Flr.
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 454-1000
          E-mail: srichard@nixonpeabody.com  

               - and -

          Lauren S. Zurier, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Flr.
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 709-5030

ROMEO POWER: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Romeo Power Inc. f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp. ("Romeo" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RMO) securities between October 5, 2020 and March
30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On March 30, 2021, Romeo announced that, as a result of a
significant supply shortage of battery cells, its fiscal 2021
revenue guidance would be reduced by 71-87%. During a related
conference call, the Company revealed that it relied solely on
Samsung and LG for its supply of power cells, not four different
cell suppliers as Romeo had previously stated.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.04 per share, or
19.7%, to close at $8.33 per share on March 31, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Romeo Power had only two battery cell suppliers, not
four; (2) the future potential risks that defendants warned of
concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and
were already negatively affecting Romeo Power's business,
operations and business prospects; (3) Romeo Power did not have the
battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up
production in 2021; (4) Romeo Power's supply constraint was a
material hindrance to Romeo Power's revenue growth; and (5) Romeo
Power's supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact,
was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers
and the spot market for their 2021 inventory; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Romeo securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 15, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

SCRIPPS HEALTH: Garcia Slams Negligent Storage of Patient Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Garcia, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Scripps Health and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00024103 (Cal. Super,
June 1, 2021), seeks injunctive relief for unlawful violations of
Business and Professions Code and the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act.

Scripps Health is a health care provider in San Diego, California.
Garcia was a patient of Scripps Health which held his individual
identifiable medical information in electronic form including but
not limited to his medical history, mental or physical condition,
or treatment, including diagnosis and treatment dates.

On May 1, 2021, Defendant negligently created, maintained,
preserved and stored patients' confidential, individual
identifiable medical information in a non-encrypted form, thus
making it susceptible to hackers, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Fax: (619) 595-3000

             - and -

      Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
      KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
      2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (760) 929-9303
      Fax: (760) 929-9260
      Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

             - and -

      Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
      P.O. Box 999
      Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
      Telephone: (760) 753-311
      Fax: (760) 753-3206


SKILLZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) investors
that acquired shares between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021.
Investors have until July 7, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint that Skillz made misleading and
false statements to the market. The majority of Skillz's revenue
was comprised of three games in particular that had suffered from a
significant decline. Skillz's financial condition was
misrepresented by its revenue recognition policy. Skillz's growth
projections, particularly with respect to the Android market, were
unrealistic. Skillz's public statements were materially misleading
and false throughout the class period, based on these facts.
Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about
Skillz.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7,
2021.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]

SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Skillz Inc.")
(NYSE: SKLZ) between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=16327&wire=5

Allegations against SKLZ include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
representations relating to certain of Skillz's business
operations, performance metrics and ultimate valuation, including,
among others, Skillz's ability to attract new end-users, future
profitability, the shrinking popularity of its hosted games that
accounted for 88% of its revenue, and the Company's valuation. For
example, one of the Company's objectively unrealistic promises
included the unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at
$3.5 billon, based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million
for 2022. However, the Company failed to inform investors that
downloads of the games that account for a majority share of its
revenue have been declining since at least November 2020. In
reality, the Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale
was far from realistic given its size, market share, reliance on
thirdparty app stores, declining downloads of its most popular
games and, critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus
Payments that Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a
fact that investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are
routinely provided to its customers, who are expected to use them
for game entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz
revenue.

If you suffered a loss in Skillz Inc. you have until July 7, 2021
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

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

SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Owners Face Class Suit Over Unsafe Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Magnarelli at wrvo.org tenants of the Skyline Apartments in
Syracuse have filed a class-action lawsuit in Onondaga County
Supreme Court against the building owner for unsafe and unsanitary
conditions, which has been going on for years. If the lawsuit moves
forward, hundreds of current and former tenants could receive
compensation and punitive damages.

Joe Maslak, an attorney with Legal Services of Central New York,
said since former NFL star Tim Green and his son Troy purchased the
once-desirable building in 2016, dangerous and unclean conditions
have been allowed to exist, like stairwells and common areas with
blood, human waste and discarded hypodermic needles. Elevators in
the 12-story building, have been in and out of operation. Safety is
a huge concern.

"Trespassers have been permitted to access that building with
impunity for several years, victimizing the tenants of that
building and leaving them, quite frankly, in fear for their lives
every day," Maslak said. "We got together with a handful of tenants
and on their behalf, we filed this class-action lawsuit seeking to
hold the Greens accountable for allowing those conditions to exist
for as long as they have."

Maslak said they're seeking a refund of rent paid to compensate for
the conditions.

"They paid for something they didn't get," he said. "They paid for
clean, safe housing, they got something very, very different."

They're also seeking punitive damages based on the egregious nature
of the conditions. Maslak said there needs to be accountability for
landlords in the city who prioritize profit over safe, clean and
habitable housing. The Greens now have a timeframe to file an
answer to the lawsuit.

Last month, Skyline tenants described to city officials the
dangerous conditions that continue to persist at the property. The
City of Syracuse served Skyline with a nuisance abatement notice in
March, following the burglary and murder of a 93-year-old woman.
[GN]

SKYLINE APARTMENTS: Property Owners Hit With New City Orders
------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Foran and Lacey Leonardi Syracuse at spectrumlocalnews.com
reports that city of Syracuse has extended a nuisance abatement
order on the Skyline Apartments for one year, including a request
for improved safety and security measures, according to a press
release from Mayor Ben Walsh's office.

The extension, outlined in a six-page order signed by Syracuse
Police Chief Kenton Buckner, will require that the property owners
report complaints and safety incidents, as well as the installation
of security cameras, upgraded security locks and alarm systems on
the doors and the introduction of onsite security comprised of
three security guards stationed at the main entrances 24 hours a
day, seven days a week.

"I strongly support Chief Buckner's order. With additional input
from residents, we've placed new requirements on the property owner
that will make Skyline Apartments a better place to live for the
hundreds of people who call it home," said Mayor Walsh.
"Ultimately, it is up to Green Skyline to live up to the duties of
a responsible property owner. The City will continue to monitor and
enforce these requirements to ensure Green Skyline does its job."

In addition to the new orders from the city, a class action lawsuit
against Tim and Troy Green and Skyline Apartments has been filed in
Supreme Court. Tenants represented by attorneys from Legal Services
of Central New York filed the complaint this week.

The complaint alleges many residents of the 364-unit building have
low incomes and many are disabled or senior citizens.

They say the building has a lack of security and cameras, adding
that tenants are too scared to leave their apartments due to
trespassers that may assault or rob them. The complaint supports
their allegations by citing drug arrests, rapes and the murder of
93-year-old Connie Tuori in her Skyline apartment earlier this
year.

The filing alleges the Greens have failed to maintain the building
and the property is unsafe and not sanitary, including drug
paraphernalia and human waste left in stairwells by non-tenants.

The Supreme Court clerks office says neither a judge nor a court
date have not been assigned to this case yet. The city of Syracuse
codes violation case against Green-Skyline will be in State Supreme
Court later this month. [GN]

STATE AUTO: Planet Sub Appeals Ruling in Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Planet Sub Holdings,
Inc., Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc., 1 Thirty Nine, Inc., and 2
Thirty-Nine, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00577-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31, 2020, the
lawsuit arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance
coverage for the losses sustained and expenses incurred by the
Plaintiffs because of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic.

The Plaintiffs have been prevented from operating their dining
rooms and were restricted to carry out or delivery services due to
the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the infectious
disease COVID-19, according to the complaint. To protect their
business in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations
for reasons outside of their control, or in order to prevent
further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased insurance
coverage from the Defendant, including property coverage, as set
forth in State Auto's Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form
BP002 (12/99).

The Defendant has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay
its insureds under its Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil
Authority, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19, any executive orders by civil authorities that have
required the limitation of normal business operations, and any
efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations. In particular, the
Defendant has denied claims submitted by the Plaintiffs under their
policies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated May 19, 2021, granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The appellate case is captioned as Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., et
al. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Company, Inc., Case No.
21-2199, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, filed on May 28, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 7, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on July 19, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, 1 Thirty-Nine, Inc., 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc.,
Planet Sub Enterprises, Inc. and Planet Sub Holdings, Inc. is due
on July 19, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Planet Sub Holdings, Inc., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; Planet Sub Enterprises,
Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
1 Thirty-Nine, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and 2 Thirty-Nine, Inc., Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          Erin D. Lawrence, Esq.
          Jeremy Suhr, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW LLC.
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 492-2826
          E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com
                  erin@boulware-law.com
                  jeremy@boulware-law.com

               - and -

          Todd Michael Johnson, Esq.
          VOTAVA & NANTZ
          9237 Ward Parkway, Suite 240
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 895-8800
          E-mail: tjohnson@vnjlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112-0000
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: trottinghaus@wcllp.com  

               - and -

          Amber J. Simon, Esq.
          Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, Esq.
          POLSINELLI, PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          E-mail: asimon@polsinelli.com
                  ltucker@polsinelli.com

Defendant-Appellee State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance
Company, Inc. is represented by:

          Elise D. Allen, Esq.
          David J. Buishas, Esq.
          Adam H. Fleischer, Esq.
          BATES & CAREY
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          E-mail: eallen@batescarey.com
                  dbuishas@batescarey.com
                  afleischer@batescarey.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Anthony Cammarata, Esq.
          Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
          Clark H. Cole, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070   
          E-mail: ncammarata@atllp.com
                  pkenny@atllp.com
                  pkenny@atllp.com

SUMMER WWK: Film Production Crew Members Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY BRENNAN; KYLE
COLEMAN; CARYN FRANKENFIELD; FRANK GALLINE; JOHN A. JOHNSTON; DAWN
SNYDER; FREDRICK WAFF; CORY GERYAK; and SARA RINEY; individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. SUMMER WWK LLC; HL
WOODS, also known as HOWARD WOODS; and CHERELLE GEORGE, Case No.
1:21-cv-00423-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order

   1. conditionally certifying a putative class of:

      "film production crew members who worked for the Defendants
      Summer WWK LLC, HL Woods, also known as Howard Woods, and
      Cherelle George  on the motion picture "Summer When We Were
      Kings;"

   2. authorizing the Plaintiffs to proceed as a collective action

      under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of the Plaintiffs
      and other similarly situated employees;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel
      with the film production crew contact information so that
      they may be notified of the lawsuit;

   4. authorizing notice through first-class mail and email, a 90
      day notice period, with a 45 day reminder notice to those who

      have not responded;

   5. approving that Notice be provided to the collective class;
      and

   6. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Opt-In Consent Form.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uTIz6R
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael B. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq.
          STANFORD FAGAN LLC
          2540 Lakewood Avenue SW
          Atlanta, GA 30315
          Telephone: (404) 622-0521, ext. 2244
          E-mail: michaels@sfglawyers.com
                  jfagan@sfglawyers.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Giolito, Esq.
          ROBERT S. GIOLITO PC
          1626 Montana Ave., Ste 201
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 897-1082
          E-mail: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com

TESLA INC: Seeking to Transfer Suit Over Solar Roof Price Hikes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shalvey at businessinsider.com reports that Tesla's lawyers
said they would ask a Pennsylvania court to transfer a class-action
complaint over Solar Roof price hikes to California, where similar
complaints have been filed.

Otherwise, the company would seek arbitration.

The Pennsylvania complaint -- filed in late April by Philip Dahlin
and Mary Arndtsen -- said Tesla unilaterally increased the price of
the couple's Solar Roof project by more than $30,000 after they'd
signed a contract.

Two similar complaints seeking class-action status were filed in
May in US District Court in California. Customers across the US
said the company increased the price of their roofing projects by
as much as 70%.

A California judge was set to decide whether to combine the two
local complaints into a single lawsuit, which may then be certified
as a class action.

Tesla's lawyers on Wednesday said that "any discussion of a
potential class settlement would be premature and complicated by
the highly individualized circumstances at issue" for each
customer.

Insider has reached out to Tesla and its lawyers for additional
comment.

Lawyers from both sides of the Pennsylvania case met on Tuesday.
They agreed that Tesla would ask a judge next week to decide
whether to transfer the case, according to a joint court filing.

Without a transfer, Tesla said it would ask the court to send the
complaint to arbitration, since there was an arbitration clause in
the couple's contract.

"The parties have conferred and agreed that Tesla will file a
motion addressing these issues on June 8, 2021," the filing said.

Tesla's Solar Roof contract arbitration clause "almost certainly
forestalls this class action under current Supreme Court
precedent," Gregory Klass, associate dean and professor at
Georgetown University Law Center, told Insider last month.

In the original complaint, Peter Muhic, of LeVan Muhic Stapleton,
wrote that the arbitration clause would be struck down as invalid
under Pennsylvania law, in part because of the way it had been
formatted on the page. He wrote that the clause also "does not
contain a separate line for each party to indicate assent."

Tesla's lawyers — Michael G. Rhodes, Whitty Somvichian, and
Danielle Pierre of Cooley LLP — said in Wednesday's filing that
the Federal Arbitration Act would compel the parties into
arbitration. That law would supersede the Home Improvement Consumer
Protection Act, a Pennsylvania law, which was cited in the
complaint, the lawyers said.

Muhic and co-counsel on Wednesday wrote that the Pennsylvania law
includes "important consumer safeguards and requirements for an
arbitration clause to be valid in a home improvement contract in
Pennsylvania."

They added: "Tesla's contract wholly fails to comply with the
requirements, rendering its arbitration clause invalid."

Tesla's lawyers also said the company disputes the
"characterization of the facts" as they're laid out in the
Pennsylvania complaint. Solar Roof customers could appeal directly
to the company, it said.

"Some customers have already availed themselves of that process,
and Tesla remains willing to consider individualized requests from
plaintiffs or other customers based on customers' unique
circumstances," the attorneys wrote. [GN]

TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Court Tosses 10 Class Suits, Including Nguyen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, dismisses the cases,
JENNIFER B. NGUYEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. WADE K. MARLER
DDC, et al., Plaintiffs v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant. PACIFIC ENDODONTICS PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. OHIO
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MARIO D CHORAK DMD
PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al., Defendants. MARK GERMACK DDS, Plaintiff v. DENTISTS INSURANCE
COMPANY Defendant. KARA McCULLOCH DMD MSD PLLC, et al., Plaintiffs
v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ASPEN
LODGING GROUP LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant. VITA COFFEE LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. LA COCINA DE
OAXACA LLC, Plaintiff v. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA,
Defendant. CARLOS O CABALLERO DDS, MS, PS, et al. v. MASSACHUSETTS
BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
2:20-cv-00597-BJR, 2:20-cv-00616-BJR, 2:20-cv-00620-BJR,
2:20-cv-00627-BJR, 2:20-cv-00661-BJR, 2:20-cv-00809-BJR,
2:20-cv-01038-BJR, 2:20-cv-01079-BJR, 2:20-cv-01176-BJR,
3:20-cv-05437-BJR (W.D. Wash.).

Before the Court are the consolidated actions of hundreds of
businesses from across Western Washington State who have turned to
their insurance policies to cover lost income stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic.  In response to the numerous cases being filed,
and the commonality of their claims, the District assigned all such
matters to Judge Rothstein, who ordered consolidation and
coordinated briefing on dispositive motions.

The COVID-19 is a viral illness that has reached pandemic
proportions throughout the world.  In Washington State, the
Governor responded to the pandemic caused by COVID-19's spread by
issuing a series of Proclamations declaring a state of emergency
and severely limiting, or closing, businesses, schools, and public
gatherings.

All types of businesses were affected, including dentists (Germack
v. Dentists Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00661), restaurants (La Cocina de
Oaxaca LLC v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., Compl., No.
20-cv-01176), law firms (Owen Davies, P.S. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.
of Hartford, No. 20-cv-06155), barbershops (J Bells, LLC v.
Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., 20-cv-05820), the Symphony (Seattle
Symphony Orchestra v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01252), and
even the Courthouse itself (COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and Court
Operations, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WASHINGTON), https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/node/614 (last
visited May 28, 2021).

Impacted businesses also span the jurisdiction of the Western
District of Washington (e.g., Mikkelson v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-05378 (Olympia); Prato v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., No.
20-cv-05402 (Tacoma); Caballero v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-05437 (Bremerton); Vancouver Clinic Inc. P.S. v. Affiliated
FM Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05605 (Vancouver); Canlis Inc. v. Fireman's
Fund Ins. Co., 21-cv-00373 (Seattle).

In response to severe limitations on their operations, many
businesses turned to their insurance policies to recover lost wages
and reduced income. This is a common story across the country as
similar governmental restrictions designed to prevent the spread of
the disease constricted access to every form of operation.  Near
uniformly, insurance companies denied the claims.

Based primarily on the reasoning that COVID-19, as a virus, does
not cause harm to or loss of physical property, insurance companies
across the United States have denied businesses' claims for lost
income pursuant to their all-risk business insurance policies.
Many insurance companies also denied coverage based on the
exclusion clauses.  In response, the businesses filed suit.

The lawsuits before the Court advance some combination of six
separate causes of action.  These include (1) Declaratory Relief
seeking a determination that the businesses' losses and expenses
resulting from interruption of business are covered by the
businesses' policies; (2) Breach of Contract based on the insurance
companies' denials of coverage; (3) Insurance Bad Faith or Failure
to Act in Good Faith based on the claim that the insurance
companies unreasonably denied coverage or failed to reasonably
investigate the businesses' claims; (4) violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Action ("WCPA"), WASH. REV. CODE Section 19.86,
et seq.; (5) violation of the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act
("IFCA"), WASH. REV. CODE Section 48.30.015; and (6) Negligence.

All of the Complaints before the Court advance at least the first
two foregoing causes of action, which the Court will refer to as
the "Contractual Claims" as they involve allegations related to the
insurance contracts themselves.  The "Extra-Contractual Claims," or
the other four causes of action, generally address the propriety of
the insurance companies' conduct in denying coverage.
Additionally, some of the Complaints advance class action
allegations seeking to represent similarly situated plaintiffs
across the State and country, e.g., Cascadia Dental Specialists,
Inc. v. Am. Fire and Cas. Co., Compl., No. 20-cv-00732, while
others include only the individually named plaintiff, e.g., Strelow
v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., Compl. No. 20-cv-00797.

As mentioned previously, these lawsuits are prevalent across the
country.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied
consolidation in an order dated Aug. 12, 2020 (In re COVID-19 Bus.
Interruption Prot. Ins. Litig., 482 F.Supp.3d 1360 (J.P.M.L. 2020).
The University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School's COVID Coverage
Litigation Tracker ("CCLT") has been monitoring the number of
similar cases filed, and their outcomes.  As of the date of the
Order, the CCLT has tracked at least 1,766 similar cases filed in
federal or state court.  Of those cases which have published
rulings on dispositive motions similar to those before the Court,
the majority have granted dismissal, finding no coverage.

The cases before the Court were transferred to Judge Rothstein on
an ad hoc, one-by-one basis as they were filed.  On Sept. 29, 2020,
the Court published its First Scheduling Order directing all of the
parties to meet and confer to discuss the commonalities in their
cases and whether consolidation was possible.  It held a hearing on
consolidation on Nov. 9, 2020.

Subsequently, the Court -- with the cooperation of the Parties --
issued a series of orders consolidating all the matters before it
to date into the ten consolidated actions currently before the
Court.  Each consolidated action represents one group of affiliated
insurance companies.

The 10 cases are as follows: (i) Aspen Lodging Group LLC v.
Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01038 (Affiliated FM Insurance
Company); (ii) Marler v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00616 (Aspen
American Insurance Company); (iii) McCulloch v. Valley Forge Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-00809 (CNA Financial Corporation); (iv) Vita Coffee
LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01079 (Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company); (v) Caballero v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-05437 (The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.); (vi) Chorak v.
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00627 (The Hartford Financial
Services Group); (vii) Pacific Endodontics PS v. Ohio Cas. Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-00620 (Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc.); (viii)
Germack v. Dentists Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00661 (The Dentists
Insurance Company); (ix) Nguyen v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.,
No. 20-cv-00597 (The Travelers Companies, Inc.); and (x) La Cocina
de Oaxaca LLC v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., No. 20-cv-01176
(Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota).

Each Defendant insurance group filed at least one dispositive
motion (either a Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, or Motion for Summary Judgment) or adopted a dispositive
motion already pending in a pre-consolidation case filed against
them.  In opposition to the dispositive motions, the Plaintiffs in
seven of the ten consolidated cases chose to file the same Omnibus
Response in each of their cases, jointly addressing the common
issues present in all of their cases.  The Defendants in those
seven cases, in turn, filed an Omnibus Reply.  The other cases
which did not file the omnibus briefing followed the same timeline
as the omnibus group but chose to file individual responses and
replies.

Discussion

Judge Rothstein holds that most of the cases currently before her
have not conducted discovery.  The Court stayed all discovery at
the request of the Parties in most of the cases pending
consideration of the dispositive motions.  Based on the lack of
discovery, and the fact that the Court directed the Parties to
address largely issues of law in their dispositive motions
concerning coverage and exclusions, the Judge evaluates all of the
Motions according to the FRCP 12(b) and 12(c) standard and consider
only the evidence appropriate to those types of motions.  She
divides the remainder of the Order into two sections.  The first
examines applicable questions of coverage and exclusions based on
the common terms contained in all the insurance policies at issue.
The Judge then proceeds to apply its general findings to the
specific cases at issue, addressing any unique aspects of those
cases.

A. General Coverage Provisions

All the insurance policies at issue require some form of the phrase
"direct physical loss of or damage to" covered property to trigger
coverage in the first instance.  The Plaintiffs urge the Court to
follow these two state court decisions and find that the term is
ambiguous and, therefore, coverage exists.  In doing so, theys rely
heavily on the courts' opinions in Perry Street and Hill and Stout.
The Defendants, on the other hand, argue the requirement for
direct physical loss or damage is clear, unambiguous, and does not
provide coverage for COVID-19-related losses.  They further argue
that Washington appellate precedent aligns with this
interpretation, and that Perry Street and Hill and Stout were
wrongly decided.  Therefore, the Defendants urge the Court to
follow the now overwhelming majority of courts who have found no
coverage.

Judge Rothstein determines the meaning of the term "direct physical
loss of" as well as the term "direct physical damage to" the
insured property.  She concludes that COVID-19 does not cause
direct physical damage to property as the term is used in the
insurance policies.  Given her conclusion that COVID-19 does not
cause physical harm or damage to non-organic surfaces, the Judge
finds that the pleading of actual presence is immaterial.  She
joins the numerous courts across the country that have held that
COVID-19 does not trigger direct physical loss or damage.

B. Extensions

Almost all the Plaintiffs argue that, should the Court find that
the general coverage provisions do not afford them coverage in the
COVID-19 situation, it should look to the extension provisions
contained in their insurance contracts for independent coverage
grounds.  The Plaintiffs contend the following provisions provide
coverage: (i) Business Income, Extra Expense, and Extended Business
Income Provisions and (ii) Civil Authority Provisions.

With respect to the first provisions asserted, Judge Rothstein
holds that none of the extension provisions which define the
benefits an insured is entitled offer coverage as they rely on an
initial trigger of the general coverage provision discussed.
Often, these extension provisions themselves explicitly incorporate
the requirement for physical loss or damage.  As to the second
provisions contended, the Judge finds that the Civil Authority
provisions do not provide coverage in these circumstances.

C. Exclusions

While Judge Rothstein's decision that the term "physical loss or
damage" does not provide coverage in the case of COVID-19 is
determinative, the Parties expend extensive time contesting the
applicability of the Virus exclusion contained in many of their
policies.

The Judge holds that the underlying facts are undisputed and the
line of causation is clear: COVID-19 caused the Governor to issue
the Proclamations, which forced the Plaintiffs to curtail their
business operations.  Where a policy includes a Virus exclusion,
that exclusion also bars coverage for the losses alleged in the
case.

D. Extra-Contractual Claims

Judge Rosthstein's holding construing the terms of the insurance
policies resolves the Plaintiffs' Contractual Claims (i.e. their
causes of action based on Declaratory Judgment and Breach of
Contract).  She has determined the meaning of the terms in question
and established that the Defendants did not breach the terms of
their insurance contracts by denying coverage.  The Parties debate,
however, whether the Plaintiffs' Extra-Contractual Claims (i.e.,
their causes of action based on Bad Faith, WCPA, IFCA, and
Negligence) can survive absent a finding of coverage.

The Judge determines that the Plaintiffs have largely failed to
plead acts independent of unreasonable denial of coverage or
investigation.  Without independent grounds, which they have failed
to allege, dismissal of their Extra-Contractual Claims is
appropriate.

E. Leave to Amend

In the present cases, Judge Rothstein concludes that amendment
would be futile.  As COVID-19 does not cause direct physical loss
of covered property, and such loss is required to trigger coverage,
there is no way that the Plaintiffs can amend their complaints to
cure this deficiency.  As such, she denies the Plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice.

II. Individual Cases

Judge Rothstein now applies her findings to the 10 consolidated
cases, listed by Defendant insurance company.  While she is
sympathetic to the plight of businesses in this difficult time,
today she joins the majority of those courts around the country who
have addressed similar claims and finds that the businesses in
question are not entitled to coverage under their insurance
policies.  Like the overwhelming consensus that has formed, the
Judge determines that COVID-19 does not cause the physical loss or
damage to property required as a condition precedent to trigger
coverage in all the relevant policies.

Order

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rothstein she grants the motions for
dismissal before her in accordance with the following:

   A. ASPEN LODGING GROUP LLC V. AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-01038:

      1. Vancouver Clinic's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
         Dkt. No. 33, is denied.

      2. Vancouver Clinic's Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt.
         No. 35, is denied as moot.

      3. Affiliated FM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
         Judgment against Vancouver Clinic, Dkt. No. 36, is
         granted.

      4. Affiliated FM's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
         Judgment against Aspen Lodging, Dkt. No. 39, is granted.

      5. Aspen Lodging's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
         Dkt. No. 42, is denied.

      6. Aspen Lodging's Motion for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 44,
         is denied as moot.

      7. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   B. MARLER V. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-00616:

      1. Aspen American's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class
         Action Complaint and Tabaraie Complaint, Dkt. No. 51, is
         granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   C. McCULLOCH V. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-00809:

      1. CNA's Motion to Dismiss Complaints, Dkt. No. 50, is
         granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   D. VITA COFFEE LLC V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-01079:

      1. Fireman's Fund's Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, is
         granted.

      2. United Policyholders, National Independent Venue
         Association, and Washington Hospitality Association's
         Motion for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae in Support of
         Vita Coffee's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
         Dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, is denied as moot.

      3. Fireman's Fund's Consolidated Motion to Dismiss the
         Complaints of Worthy Hotels, Inc. and Naccarato
         Restaurant Group, Inc., Dkt. No. 41, is granted.

      4. Fireman's Fund's Motion to Dismiss Weimac LLC's
         Complaint, Dkt. No. 51, is granted.

      5. The matter is Ddismissed with Prejudice.

   E. CABALLERO V. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-05437:

      1. Massachusetts Bay's Rule 12 Motions against Plaintiff's
         First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 56, is granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   F. CHORAK V. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-00627:

      1. Hartford's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on
         the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 56, is granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   G. PACIFIC ENDODONTICS PS V. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
      No. 20-cv-00620:

      1. Liberty Mutual's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
         Dkt. No. 46, is granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   H. GERMACK V. DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 20-cv-00661:

      1. Dentists' Motion to Strike and Dismiss all Class Action
         Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 11, is
         denied as MOOT.

      2. Dentists' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 35, is
         granted.

      3. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   I. NGUYEN V. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
      No. 20-cv-00597:

      1. Travelers' Revised Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
         Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 53, is granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

   J. LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC V. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
      MINNESOTA, No. 20-cv-01176:

      1. Tri-State's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Dkt.
         No. 45, is granted.

      2. The matter is dismissed with Prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/96nvxz9y from Leagle.com.


UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL: Judge Signs Class Action Certification Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Justice Glustein signed the Flight PS752 Class
Action certification order for the class action arising from the
downing of UIA Flight PS752.

On January 8, 2020, UIA Flight PS752 was shot down moments after
takeoff from Iran on its way to Canada via Ukraine. There were no
survivors.

Flight PS752 Class Action certified by the Court.

The class action is on behalf of the passengers and the passengers'
families. It alleges the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively the Iran Defendants)
and Ukraine International Airlines PJSC (UIA) are legally
responsible for the downing of Flight PS752.

Previously, the Court found the class action is "the preferable
procedure for the resolution of the common issues in an action and
provides a fair, efficient, and manageable method for advancing the
class members' claims."

"We are grateful the court made another order in our favour" said
representative plaintiff Vahid Hezarkhani, whose sister-in-law and
brother-in-law were on Flight PS752.

"This is another major litigation milestone as we prosecute the
class action for the passengers and their families. We will
continue to work with the various stakeholders as we seek justice
and compensation" said Tom Arndt, of TWA Law, class counsel
representing the class members.

The class action was commenced January 20, 2020. In September 2020
the court approved the third-party litigation funding agreement
with Galactic Litigation Funders. In November 2020, the court
determined that the Class Action and TWA Law were the best class
action and best law firm positioned to advance the interests of the
victims and their families, permitting this class action to go
forward, staying similar actions commenced by other counsel.

Formal notice of certification will be published shortly. Class
Members and interested individuals are encouraged to consult the
case specific website regarding progress of the litigation:
www.flightps752.ca [GN]


UNIFIED SECURITY: Facing COVID-19 Class Action Over Liquidation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Cooper at theage.com.au reports that the company that provided
security at the Melbourne hotel central to last year's COVID-19
second wave has gone into liquidation while facing a class action
over its role in the outbreak.

Unified Security Group is the first defendant in a class action
brought by lead plaintiff Dragan Markovic, whose father Nenad
contracted COVID-19 in a nursing home and died in hospital in
August.

Health records indicated Nenad Markovic contracted a strain of
coronavirus that originated at the Rydges on Swanston hotel, the
Supreme Court heard.

But Unified, which provided security at Rydges, had recently gone
into liquidation, a directions hearing was told.

Ninety per cent of cases during last year's second wave in Victoria
originated from leakages at Rydges. MSS Security, which provided
security at the Stamford Plaza hotel, is also named in the
lawsuit.

The inquiry into Victoria's bungled hotel quarantine system found
99 per cent of COVID-19 cases during the second wave were traced to
returned travellers staying at the hotels, through leakages that
became community transmissions.

More than 800 people died during the second wave, the vast majority
of them residents in aged care homes.

Barrister Andrew Fraatz, acting for Dragan Markovic and other
plaintiffs, said the class action was "in a state of flux"
following Unified's liquidation.

However, he was hopeful the case would proceed because of the
company's insurance.

"I'm on safe ground in saying the contract between the state of
Victoria and Unified did require insurance: professional indemnity
and public liability insurance," he said.

"It's a safe bet that there is insurance there."

Mr Fraatz said his clients needed a few weeks to consider their
position following the development.

"We need some time to shake the tree and see what the position is,"
he said.

A lawyer who was acting for Unified was on Friday excused from the
hearing because he did not have instructions from the company's
liquidators.

Anna Robertson, acting for MSS Security, told the court there were
deficiencies in the plaintiffs' case as she didn't yet know how it
was alleged there was an infection from Stamford Plaza which led to
community transmissions.

Justice John Dixon ordered the case return to court on July 12.

The case is one of three Victorian class actions arising out of
last year's second wave. The other two - one from businesses and
the other from individuals who lost their jobs - focus on economic
losses caused by last year's lockdowns. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Scott Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCOTT, JEREMY CERDA,
OSMAN AK, MERUDH PATEL, GREGORY HARDY, and LARRY WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FORMER WARDEN HERMAN E. QUAY, FACILITIES MANAGER JOHN MAFFEO, and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:19-cv-05039-ERK-PK
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edward R. Korman entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all those people who were confined in the Metropolitan
      Detention Center's West Building from January 27, 2019 until

      February 3, 2019, and who have or will in the future have
      satisfied the exhaustion requirement imposed by 28 U.S.C.
      section 2675;" and

   2. appointing class counsel in light of the work they have
      already done on this case, as well as their experience,
      knowledge, and resources.

The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the proposed class is
ascertainable and complies with the Rule 23(a) prerequisites. They
have also shown compliance with the requirements to maintain a
class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), says Judge Korman.

The Plaintiffs brought this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action
for negligence on behalf of a putative class of persons
incarcerated at the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Metropolitan Detention
Center (MDC) facility in Brooklyn during a power outage. The
complaint alleged that on January 27, 2019, during a period of
severe winter weather, the West Building at the MDC lost power
because of an electrical fire.

A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated May 25, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Slams Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Shane Lavin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Michael A.
Colglazier, George Whitesides, Doug Ahrens and Jon Campagna,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03070, (E.D. N.Y., May 28, 2021), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops
human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the
U.S. On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed
via a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp., a special purpose acquisition company and its
then-private predecessor, after which Social Capital Hedosophia
(SCH) changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc."

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that for accounting
purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities
rather than equities, and Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting. As a result, the company improperly accounted for SCH
warrants that were outstanding at the time of the merger, says the
complaint.

On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share,
or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 2021. Gavin
acquired Virgin Galactic securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


VOLVO GROUP: Court Tosses FLSA Collective Action Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORETHA COTTON-THOMAS,
Individually and on Behalf of Other Similarly Situated Individuals,
v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00113-GHD-RP
(N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Glen H. Davidson entered an order
that:

   1. the Plaintiffs motion seeking to have the Court certify this
      case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
      Act is denied;

   2. the putative class members' claims shall be dismissed
without
      prejudice; and

   3. the individual claims of the named Plaintiff, Loretha
Cotton-
      Thomas, shall procced.

Volvo manufactures automobiles. The Company offers heavy trucks,
engines, and auto parts and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vZxwuf at no extra charge.[CC]



WASHINGTON PRIME: Schall Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Washington
Prime Group Inc. ("WPG" or "the Company") (NYSE: WPG) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 23, 2021.

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. WPG suffered from a substantially
deteriorating financial condition. The Company's worsening
financial condition resulted in considerable uncertainty about its
ability to meet capital structure obligations. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about WPG, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

WAWA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Conditional Class Status Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gene E.K.
Pratter entered an order that the Employee Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification is denied without prejudice.

Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUUCfI at no extra charge.[CC]

WW INTERNATIONAL: Quintanilla Third Amendment Complaint Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA QUINTANILLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WW
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Virginia Corporation doing business as
Weight Watchers, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-06261-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer
entered an order dismissing the third amendment complaint in full,
with prejudice as to Quintanilla's claim for damages and without
prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as to her
claims for injunctive relief.

The Court dismisses Quintanilla's fourth effort at pleading claims
against WW. In filing the TAC, Quintanilla had the benefit of
reviewing the motion to dismiss the SAC filed by WW, which made
essentially the same arguments that today have proven fatal to her
claims. After that motion was filed, the Court gave Quintanilla the
choice either to oppose it or to amend the SAC to fortify her
claims, and informed her that this would likely be her final
opportunity to amend. Quintanilla chose to amend, but has again
failed to plead any plausible claims against WW. And although she
has, perfunctorily, sought leave to amend yet again, she has not
suggested that she is aware of additional unpled facts that could
salvage her claims. The Court's dismissal of Quintanilla's claims
for damages today is therefore with prejudice, and without leave to
amend.

WW International, formerly Weight Watchers International, Inc., is
a global company headquartered in the U.S. that offers various
products and services, including weight loss and maintenance,
fitness, and mindset such as the Weight Watchers comprehensive diet
program.

A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated May 24, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SemYIV at no
extra charge.[CC]


[*] Cartel Follow-On Litigation Under New Dutch Class Action System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, class actions seem to be a go-to instrument
for cartel follow-on litigation. In the United Kingdom, the
(certification) criteria for collective proceedings were recently
clarified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Merricks vs.
Mastercard proceedings. What about the use of class actions for
cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands, now that the recent
Collective Damages in Class Actions Act (Dutch acronym WAMCA) has
taken effect?

Cartel follow-on litigation in the Netherlands
The Netherlands is seen as an attractive jurisdiction for follow-on
proceedings. Cartel follow-on proceedings are typically conducted
by use of the assignment model (cessiemodel). There are only few
examples where a class action in relation to antitrust
infringements was brought (under the particular provision of
Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code, DCC).

Assignment model v. Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA)
When using the assignment model, a litigation funder incorporates a
"special purpose vehicle" (SPV), for example a foundation or a
private limited company, to which injured parties can subsequently
assign their claims. The SPV can bring the actual (bundled) claims
against one or more of the cartelists in fairly standard
proceedings before the competent court. The assignment
documentation is commonly tested extensively.

A class action under Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA) works
differently. This provision allows an interest organization – if
admissibility requirements are met – to request declaratory
relief in a class action. However, it limits the possibilities for
funders/funding arrangements and it explicitly rules out the
possibility to claim monetary damages. Mere declaratory relief does
in practice not provide much (additional) value, since proceedings
tend to follow a decision by which the European Commission has
already established the infringement.

Will the WAMCA increase the use of Article 3:305a DCC in cartel
follow-on proceedings?
As per 1 January 2020, the WAMCA has widened the scope of Article
3:305a DCC and enables interest organizations to claim monetary
damages in a class action. The WAMCA also enhances admissibility
requirements for interest organizations and introduces a lead
claimant system in case multiple interest organizations bring
collective claims. Please see our earlier news item for more
general information on the WAMCA.

Although the WAMCA facilitates claims for monetary compensation,
funders and/or interest organizations may be reluctant to use
Article 3:305a DCC for cartel follow-on proceedings because of
strict(er) admissibility requirements (limited case law regarding
cartel follow-on proceedings under Article 3:305a DCC (pre-WAMCA)
already suggested a relatively high bar for admissibility). In
addition, the WAMCA introduces a lead claimant system for a
potential multiplicity of claimants, but the WAMCA is not
specifically tailored for a potential multiplicity of cartel
infringers as defendants.

Over twenty class actions have been registered in the Dutch central
class action register since 1 January 2020. None of these
specifically relates to antitrust infringements. Going forward,
people in the field do not necessarily expect players to shift to
using WAMCA proceedings as cartel follow-on, also given the
widespread use of the assignment model.

Get in touch
Our team has extensive experience with competition litigation,
class actions and -settlements and other forms of collective
redress. For more information, please contact Mijke Sinninghe
Damste or Huib Schrama or someone else in our competition
litigation team. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***