---

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

              Friday, June 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 111

                            Headlines

1876 CLARK: American Family Denies Duty to Defend in BIPA Suit
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Gilliland Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Tizzano Claims
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Sargent Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Owens Says

3M COMPANY: Faces Robert Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Exposure
3M COMPANY: Fornof Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Hubbard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Martyn Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxicity Exposure
3M COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products

A & M PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
ADSAD LLC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Georgiev FLSA Suit
ADT LLC: Doty Seeks July 12 Extension to File Class Status Bid
AFTERPAY US: Faces Miller Suit Over Undisclosed Bank Fees
ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH: Alvarado Appeals Ruling in Labor Class Suit

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Screening Time
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Osborn-Vincent Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit
ANTIQUE GARAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Montebon Alleges
AQUOR WATER: Pascual Seeks Blind Consumers' Access to Website
ARROW SENIOR: Olin-Marquez Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class

ATERIAN INC: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action Suit
ATLANTIC CLOTHING: Underpays Clothing Sorters, Tapia et al. Claim
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 19
ATONOMI LLC: Bid to Stay Class Certification Deadlines Tossed
BNSF RAILWAY: July 9 Deadline for Class Cert. Reply OK'd

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Underpays Gas Royalties, Hayhook Suit Says
BURT'S BEES: Goldfarb Sues Over Pet Shampoos' 99.7% Natural Labels
CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CAREER STRATEGIES: Gonzalez FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California

CATHAY PACIFIC: Loses Dismissal & Arbitration Bid in Herrera Suit
COHERENT INC: Lawrence Sues Over II-VI Merger
COHERENT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Finger Says
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Hagens Berman Woos Investors With Losses
COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Solis et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Drivers' OT

COVETRUS INC: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Pascual Claims
CR MILL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' OT Wages, Nunez Suit Claims
CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
DCI DONOR: Wells Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
DEPOSITPHOTOS INC: Pascual Sues Over Blind's Equal Website Access

DREAMSTIME.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pascual Says
E&R SERVICES: Santos Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class
ELDER FORD: Hamdorf Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
FAIRLIFE LLC: Javed Sues Over Core Power Elite Beverage's Labels
FIRST CHINESE: Guzman, et al. Appeal Labor Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir.

FIRST FINANCIAL: Jackson Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
FLINT, MI: Final OK of Crisis Settlement Requested in Federal Court
FPA VILLA DEL LAGO: Seeks Summary Judgment in Lawrence Class Suit
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Evans Sues Over 78% Drop of Stock Price

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Notes of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Plaintiff Deadline
FRUIT OF THE EARTH: Kenney Sues Over Mislabeled Zinc Lotion
GENERAL ATOMICS: Petition for Writ of Mandate in Green Suit OK'd
GENERAL MILLS: Bid for Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Tossed

GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Shows Blueprint for Pay Cases
H.P. SERVICES: Rodriguez-Ortiz Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT
HONDA MOTORS: Battery Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Florida
HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Rodents Chewing Wires
HONDA MOTORS: Ridgeline Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Tailgates

ILLINOIS: Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Kay v. State Treasurer
JAY PEAK: Receiver Reaches $32.5M Settlement With MSK
KIMBALL, TIREY: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Sues Over Kraft Products' Phthalates Content
LABORATORY CORP: July 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought

LIBERTY INSURANCE: TCPA Counsel Loses Millions From $60M Recovery
MARATHON REFINING: Hazlett Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
MIMI'S ROCK: Hernandez Sues over Mislabeled Fish Oil Supplement
MOBILE GAMING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Newstyle Suit Affirmed
MODERN LIGHTING: Faces Li Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

NCAA: Liable to College Football Players' TBIs, Holland Alleges
NCAA: Stipulation for Order Extending Case Deadlines Granted
NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Settlement in Chacon Class Suit Gets Initial OK
NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Toribio Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
NEW SCHOOL: Aubrey Suit Seeks Tuition Refunds Over School Closure

OAK STREET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OK FOODS INC: Johnson Slams Employee Data Breach
ORLANS PC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Garland Class Suit
OVASCIENCE: Bids to Strike & Dismiss Dahhan Securities Suit Denied
P&L ENTERPRISES: Atain Specialty Files Suit in D. South Carolina

PALM BEACH, FL: To Spend $850K for Defense in Two Class Suits
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: A. W. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Rumely Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Thornton Alerts Investors to Class Action
PLAQUEMAKER.COM INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PLASTIC RESEARCH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRA HEALTH: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Morgan Suit Alleges
PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Class Deal in Donaldson Suit Wins Final Nod
PROFESSIONAL COATINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graves Alleges
PROLLERGY CORPORATION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Reminds Investors of Class Action
RESIL HEALTH: Magnet RX Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ROMEO POWER: Vincent Wong Notes of June 15 Plaintiff Deadline
SALEM UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SCHLEICH USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEQUIUM ASSET: Nix Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
SHUTTERFLY INC: Fed Reserve Hints at Govt-Backed Cryptocurrency
SILK EXOTIC: Meatheney Hits Tip Credit, Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
SNACKLINS INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUNFLOWER BANK: McCollam Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Charges
VANTAGE CREDIT: Can Compel Individual Arbitration of Henry's Claims
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Investing Securities Claims
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Palma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Judgment & Awards in Magadia Suit Partly Nixed

WHITE COMMUNICATIONS: Judgment for Shirley in Usher Suit Affirmed
WILD EARTH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WILL HAYES: Parry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $177K Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR's Hoke Subsidiary Faces Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $15.0MM Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Lawsuits in La.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Faces $48MM Indemnification Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $181.6MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Still Defends Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Has 678 New Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natura &Co Defends 109 Cases at Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Defends 121 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 51 Active Cases at April 13
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Numerous PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Products Defends PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Defends 215 Cases at March 31


                            *********

1876 CLARK: American Family Denies Duty to Defend in BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1876 CLARK LLC; 4AM
ENTERPRISES, LLC; AMELIACO, INC.; ARC 00119 LIMITED; ARC 10547
LIMITED; ARC 17460 LIMITED; ARC 3304 LTD.; ARC 5233 LTD.; B.K.
DAVIS LLC; B.M. DAVIS LLC; B-CHU, INC.; BEAR & SON'S, INC.; BEAR
ESTATES #1, LLC; BEAR-LARKIN, INC.; BEAR-MAR, INC.; BEN-STA
ENTERPRISES, INC.; BRE BASH, INC.; BRE DOTA, INC.; BRE MEN, INC.;
BRE PON, INC.; BRE SOGRAND, INC.; BREWASH, INC.; BURRIS
ENTERPRISES, LLC AKO; C2 LLC; CANADY ENTERPRISES CORP. V; CAREMEL,
INC.; CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES, INC.; CLARK 13876, LLC; CLARK 15807,
LLC; CLARK 18914, LLC; CLIC, INC.; C-MAC, INC.; CRYSTAL-ROSE CORP.;
D.A.L.L. ANOINTED, INC.; DAK4, LLC; DARKOR LLC; DARREN A. FREIHAGE
LLC; DDR WITZEL LLC; DE SOL, LLC; DEKALLLB EAST LLC; DEKALLLBWEST
LLC; DIXON C&N, INC.; DNDWITZEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.; DORMAX,
LLC; EJS OF ALL, LLC; ELSTON ARCHES CORPORATION; EPTA, INC.; FRG,
LLC; GAILCO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; GENDCO., INC.; GFUNK KEDZIE
CORPORATION; GJFUNK WABASH CORPORATION; GLUSKI, INC.; GRANTINE,
LLC; IES LEB, LLC; INFINITE BUENA VIDA, LLC; J&G ON DEVON; JACKPOT,
INC.; JACKRABBIT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; JAMES L JAMES K, INC;
JANALEX, LLC; JANARY, INC.; JATAN, LLC; JCS-MAC CORP.; JDD
INVESTMENT CO.; JEFKOR LLC; JESHORT, INC.; JJC RESTAURANT GROUP,
LLC; JKLM, INC.; JOHANNACO, INC.; JPD ENTERPRISES SULLIVAN, LLC;
KARAVITES REST. 26230, INC.; KARAVITES RESTAURANT 14806, LLC;
KARAVITES RESTAURANT 1968, LLC; KARAVITES RESTAURANT 31663, LLC;
KARAVITES RESTAURANT 6676, LLC; KARINCO, INC.; KARPINSKE
ENTERPRISES, LLC; KAZ ENTERPRISES, INC.; KAZANOVA MANAGEMENT
GALENA, INC.; KIPCO RESTAURANTS LLC AJB SERIES; KIPCO RESTAURANTS
LLC MATTESON SERIES; KIPCO RESTAURANTS LLC WOODRIDGE SERIES; KIPCO
RESTAURANTS LLC YORK ROAD SERIES; KONNZ CORPORATION; KORY
MANAGEMENT, INC.; KRAUS, INC.; LACO, INC.; LEXI MANAGEMENT, LLC;
LGS LINCOLN, LLC; LINDERS LIMITED II, LLC; LINDERS LIMITED, LLC;
LOCKOR, LLC; LU-JAC, INC.; LYONS 3, INC.; M&B INVESTMENTS OF IL,
INC.; MAC SPEEDY, INC.; MAE BERRY, INC.; MAO ENTERPRISES, LLC;
MARWAY, INC.; MCCARTHY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; MCHAM CORP.; MIA
ENTERPRISES LLC; MIDAN, INC.; MYD HOLDINGS, LLC; MYD HOLDINGS,
LLC-A SERIES; MYD HOLDINGS, LLC-B SERIES; MYD HOLDINGS, LLC-C
SERIES; MYD HOLDINGS, LLC-D SERIES; N AND G MANAGEMENT, LLC; NA
MAC, LLC; NEUGREEN MANAGEMENT, INC.; NICKOR ENTERPRISES, INC.; NIK
INC; NJK 10533 LLC; NJK 18237 LLC; NJK 4508 LLC; NJK MANAGEMENT,
LLC; NORNAT II, INC.; NORNAT III, INC.; NORNAT IV, INC.; NORNAT IX,
INC.; NORNAT V, INC.; NORNAT XI, INC.; NORNAT XII, INC.; NORNAT,
INC.; O'KEEFE ENTERPRISES, INC.; O'KEEFE PARTNERS II, LLC; O'KEEFE
RESTAURANT SYSTEMS, INC.; OMAKIN RESTAURANTS, LLC; OREGON PLOCK,
INC.; OURFIVE, INC.; OVIEDO TOO, INC.; PACK, INC.; PAY CO; PLAKOR
LLC; PMA MCD, INC.; R.A. GRAY, INC.; R.K. KENZIE CORPORATION;
RANDALL BEAR, INC.; RJS SHILO, LLC; RODEBRAD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
INC.; RODEBRAD OF PANA, LTD.; RYWAY, LLC; SALASOL, LLC; SCHMITT
PLANO LLC; SCHMITT SOUTH EOLA LLC; SCHMITT WARRENVILLE, LLC;
SCHMITT-EOLA COMMONS, LLC; SCHMITT-FOX VALLEY COURT, LLC;
SCHMITT-FOX VALLEY, INC.; SCHMITT-ORCHARD, LLC; SCHMITT-YORKVILLE,
LLC; SHORT TEAM, INC; SINGLETTA CORP.; SINGLETTA II; SLEEPY BEAR,
INC.; SPENCE RESTAURANTS LLC 17618 SERIES; SPENCE RESTAURANTS LLC
19338 SERIES; SPENCE RESTAURANTS LLC 19705 SERIES; SPENCE
RESTAURANTS LLC 32034 SERIES; SPENCE RESTAURANTS LLC 37659 SERIES;
SPENCE RESTAURANTS LLC 6561 SERIES; SRJC INC.; SUECO, LLC; SUELOCK,
LLC; SUSAN 3-55 LLC; TAYLOR 2525MLK INC; TAYLOR ILLINOISCENTER INC;
TAYLOR WABASH-ADAMS INC; TERDYNE, INC.; TOLLLB LLC; TRIPPCO, LLC;
UNO CHIP, INC.; V. OVIEDO, INC.; VECTOR BUSINESS GROUP CORP.; VRS
FAIRVIEW, LLC; WASCO MAC, LLC;WAYMAR, LLC; WC MAC, LLC; WESTFIELD
ENTERPRISES, INC.; WESTKOR LLC; YUNES I, LLC; ZANDER 1, LLC; ZANE
INC.; and ZOE & YUMMY ENTERPRISES INC.; McDONALD'S CORPORATION;
McDONALD'S USA, LLC; ALLISON ARTHUR, KYLE ARTHUR, MAKYEIA DANIELS,
TIFFANY GOMEZ, LaSHUNDA HICKS, KY'ARON MANNING, BRETT PRATHER, and
DAVID TRUETNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02991 (N.D. Ill., June 3,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment.

The Plaintiff asserts that the claims in the underlying action
faced by the Defendants for alleged Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) violations are not covered by the policy of
insurance that the Plaintiff issued to the Defendants. The
Plaintiff contends that it has no duty or obligation to defend in
connection with the claims made against the Defendants by the
claimants for one or more or all of the following reasons: (a) that
the Class Action Complaint does not allege "bodily injury" as
defined by the policy of insurance, (b) that the Class Action
Complaint does not allege "property damage" as defined by the
policy of insurance; (c) that the Class Action Complaint does not
allege "personal and advertising injury" as defined by the policy
of insurance, (d) that the Class Action Complaint does not allege
an "occurrence" as defined by the policy of insurance, (e) that the
policy issued to the insureds does not cover claims for "bodily
injury" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of
employment-related practices, (f) that the alleged BIPA violations
are excluded by the access to or disclosure of personal information
exclusion endorsement to the American Family Mutual Insurance
Company's policy.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. is an insurance
corporation, which maintains its principal place of business in
Madison, Wisconsin.

1876 Clark LLC is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

4AM Enterprises, LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Ameliaco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Bourbonnais, Illinois.

ARC 00119 Limited is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Libertyville, Illinois.

ARC 10547 Limited is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Vernon Hills, Illinois.

ARC 17460 Limited is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Libertyville, Illinois.

ARC 3304 Limited is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Northbrook, Illinois.

ARC 5233 Limited is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Glenview, Illinois.

B.K. Davis LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Champaign, Illinois.

B.M. Davis LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Champaign, Illinois.

B-Chu, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Macomb, Illinois.

Bear & Son's, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in McHenry, Illinois.

Bear Estates #1, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in LaGrange, Illinois.

Bear-Larkin Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Elgin, Illinois.

Bear-Mar, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Streamwood, Illinois.

Ben-Sta Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Homer Glen, Illinois.

BRE Bash, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Springfield, Illinois.

BRE Dota, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Mendota, Illinois.

BRE Men, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Mendota, Illinois.

BRE Pon, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Pontiac, Illinois.

BRE Sogrand, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Springfield, Illinois.

BRE Wash, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Washington, Illinois.

Burris Enterprises, LLC AKO is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Red Bud, Illinois.

C2 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Chatham, Illinois.

Canady Enterprises Corp. V is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Caremel, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Bourbonnais, Illinois.

Carnagio Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Joliet, Illinois.

Clark 13876, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois.

Clark 15807, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Bartonville, Illinois.

Clark 18914, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois.

CLJC Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Freeburg, Illinois.

C-Mac, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Troy, Illinois.

Crystal-Rose Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Marengo, Illinois.

D.A.L.L. Anointed, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in North Riverside, Illinois.

DAK4, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Alsip, Illinois.

Darkor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Darien, Illinois.

Darren A. Freihage LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Illinois.

DDR Witzel LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Danville, Illinois.

De Sol, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Dekalllb East LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Dekalb, Illinois.

Dekalllb West LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Dekalb, Illinois.

Dixon C&N, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Dixon, Illinois.

Dormax LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois.

EJS Ofall, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in O'Fallon, Illinois.

Elston Arches Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

EPTA, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Oglesby, Illinois.

FRG, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in River Grove, Illinois.

Gailco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Joliet, Illinois.

Gendco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Rock Island, Illinois.

GFunk Kedzie Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

GJFunk Wabash Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Gluski, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Olney, Illinois.

Grantine, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Pekin, Illinois.

IES LEB, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Lebanon, Illinois.

Infinite Buena Vida, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

J&G on Devon is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

Jackpot, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Robinson, Illinois.

Jackrabbit Enterprises, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Belvidere,
Illinois.

James L James K, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Vienna, Illinois.

Janalex, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in North Pekin, Illinois.

Janary Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Bartonville, Illinois.

Jatan Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

JCS-Mac Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Algonquin, Illinois.

JDD Investment Company is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Jefkor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Joliet, Illinois.

Jeshort, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in New Baden, Illinois.

JJC Restaurant Group, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Romeoville, Illinois.

JKLM, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Milan, Illinois.

Johannaco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Marengo, Illinois.

JPD Enterprises Sullivan, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Sullivan,
Illinois.

Karavites Rest. 26230, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Karavites Restaurant 14806, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Lake Bluff,
Illinois.

Karavites Restaurant 1968, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Karavites Restaurant 31663, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Waukegan,
Illinois.

Karavites Restaurant 6676, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Karinco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Kankakee, Illinois.

Karpinske Enterprises, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Galena, Illinois.

Kaz Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Jacksonville, Illinois.

Kazanova Management Galena, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with
its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Kipco Restaurants, LLC AJB Series is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Lemont, Illinois.

Kipco Restaurants LLC Matteson Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Matteson,
Illinois.

Kipco Restaurants LLC Woodridge Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in South
Holland, Illinois.

Kipco Restaurants LLC York Road Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago
Heights, Illinois.

Konzz Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Burbank, Illinois.

Kory Management, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Joliet, Illinois.

Kraus, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Forsyth, Illinois.

Laco, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Kankakee, Illinois.

Lexi Management, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

LGS Lincoln, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in O'Fallon, Illinois.

Linders Limited II, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Mattoon, Illinois.

Linders Limited, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Altamont, Illinois.

Lockor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Lockport, Illinois.

Lu-Jac Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Belvidere, Illinois.

Lyons 3, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Lyons, Illinois.

M&B Investments of Illinois, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with
its principal place of business in Quincy, Illinois.

Mac Speedy, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Moline, Illinois.

Mae Berry, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Mao Enterprises, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Palatine, Illinois.

Marway, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Peoria Heights, Illinois.

McCarthy Management Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Flora, Illinois.

McHam Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Hampshire, Illinois.

Mia Enterprises LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Villa Park, Illinois.

Midan, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

MYD Holdings, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

MYD Holdings, LLC-A Series is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

MYD Holdings, LLC-B Series is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

MYD Holdings, LLC-C Series is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

MYD Holdings, LLC-D Series is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

N & G Management, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Naperville, Illinois.

NA Mac, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in North Aurora, Illinois.

Neu-Green Management, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Olympia Fields, Illinois.

Nickor Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Plainfield, Illinois.

Nik, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Monmouth, Illinois.

NJK 10533 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Marshall, Illinois.

NJK 18237 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Casey, Illinois.

NJK 4508 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Paris, Illinois.

NJK Management, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Plainfield, Illinois.

Nornat II, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Calumet City, Illinois.

Nornat III, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Nornat IV, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Markham, Illinois.

Nornat V, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Calumet Park, Illinois.

Nornat IX, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Harvey, Illinois.

Nornat XI, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Nornat XII, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Nornat, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

O'Keefe Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois.

O'Keefe Partners II, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Melrose Park, Illinois.

O'Keefe Restaurant Systems, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with
its principal place of business in Carol Stream, Illinois.

Omakin Restaurants, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Oregon Plock, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Oregon, Illinois.

Ourfive, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Beecher, Illinois.

Oviedo Too, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Pack, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Decatur, Illinois.

Pay Co. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Aledo, Illinois.

Plakor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Plainfield, Illinois.

PMA MCD, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois.

R.A. Gray, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Edwardsville, Illinois.

R.K. Kenzie Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Randall Bear, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Elgin, Illinois.

RJS Shilo, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Belleville, Illinois.

Rodebrad Management Company, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with
its principal place of business in Vandalia, Illinois.

Rodebrad of Pana, Ltd. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Pana, Illinois.

Ryway LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Salasol, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Schmitt Plano LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt South Eola LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt Warrenville LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt-Eola Commons, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt-Fox Valley Court LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt-Fox Valley, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt-Orchard LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Schmitt-Yorkville LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Aurora, Illinois.

Short Team Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Murphysboro, Illinois.

Singletta Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Huntley, Illinois.

Singletta II is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Huntley, Illinois.

Sleepy Bear, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in South Elgin, Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 17618 Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Braidwood, Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 19338 Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Joliet,
Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 19705 Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Channahon, Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 32034 Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Channahon, Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 37659 Series is an Illinois limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Romeoville, Illinois.

Spence Restaurants LLC 6561 Series is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Joliet, Illinois.

Sueco, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New Lenox, Illinois.

Suelock LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Hillsboro, Illinois.

Susan 3-55 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Lockport, Illinois.

Taylor 2525MLK, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Taylor Illinois-Center Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Taylor Wabash-Adams Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Terdyne Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in West Peoria, Illinois.

Tolllb LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Dekalb, Illinois.

Trippco LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Rockford, Illinois.

Uno Chip Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Genoa, Illinois.

V. Oviedo, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Vector Business Group Corp. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Franklin Park, Illinois.

VRS Fairview LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Fairview Heights, Illinois.

Wasco Mac LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in St. Charles, Illinois.

Waymar LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois.

WC Mac LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in West Chicago, Illinois.

Westfield Enterprises Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Ottawa, Illinois.

Westkor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Westmont, Illinois.

Yunes I LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Rochelle, Illinois.

Zander 1 LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Peoria, Illinois.

Zane Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Kewanee, Illinois.

Zoe & Yummy Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Coal City, Illinois.

McDonald's Corporation is a fast food company with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

McDonald's USA LLC is a company that operates a chain of
restaurants, with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
         PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED
         One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 578-7548
         Facsimile: (312) 346-8242
         E-mail: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Gilliland Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LLOYD GILLILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01634-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, the suit asserts.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Tizzano Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES TIZZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01639-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters
employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of
and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS
and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The
Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the
Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop kidney
cancer, the suit says.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Sargent Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ALFRED SARGENT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01638-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). The Defendants knew that their AFFF products contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, but they failed to warn end
users of the products about the health risks. The Plaintiff was
unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products, the suit says.

As a direct result of the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products during the course of his training and
firefighting activities, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Owens Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY JOE OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01637-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants due to
their failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known,
that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant
health risks to humans. The Defendants' failure to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, about
the danger of the products to human health caused the Plaintiff to
develop kidney, bladder, and gallbladder cancer, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Robert Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY DEAN ROBERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01653-RMG
(D.S.C., June 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular and lymphatic cancer
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Fornof Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK JEROME FORNOF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer due to his exposure
to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of
his training and firefighting activities.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Hubbard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LEE HUBBARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01635-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The class suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products are highly toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that
use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing
PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Martyn Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxicity Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK RITCHIE MARTYN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01636-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Owens Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROY OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01652-RMG
(D.S.C., June 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

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

A & M PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
WAYD DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A & M PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA; and
ARTHUR HURTEAU III, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00386 (N.D. Ind.,
May 28, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.

A & M PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA owns and operates Domino's
Pizza franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


ADSAD LLC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Georgiev FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Jacob Rifkin filed an appeal from the Court's Order dated
May 17, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled IGOR GEORGIEV, SANJAR
ORTIKOV, and SEMEN SEREDENKO, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. ADSAD, LLC d/b/a ONEGIN RESTAURANT,
ALEKSANDER SHAPIRO, and JACOB RIFKIN, in their individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 19-cv-122, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that the Defendants require all of
their bussers and runners to work without wages and rely solely
upon tips for compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Rifkin seeks a review of the Court's Order denying his motion
to vacate the default judgment against him and denying his motion
to reopen the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC, Case No.
21-1397, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on June 1, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Jacob Rifkin, in their individual and
professional capacity, is represented by:

          Jeremy Brett Honig, Esq.
          RIVKIN RADLER LLP
          477 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (516) 357-3580

Plaintiffs-Appellees Igor Georgiev, Sanjar Ortikov, and Semen
Seredenko, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

ADT LLC: Doty Seeks July 12 Extension to File Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA DOTY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADT, LLC d/b/a
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company, and
TELESFORO AVILES, an individual, Case No. 0:20-cv-60972-AHS (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of time to file her motion for class certification, up
through and including July 12, 2021.

The Plaintiff Doty filed this action in May 2020. ADT filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint, after which Plaintiff Doty amended
her complaint. ADT again moved to dismiss, which was fully briefed,
and which the Court denied on December 30, 2020. The Court ordered
a scheduling report, which the Parties submitted on February 4,
2021. The Court entered the current schedule on February 5, 2021.

ADT designs and manufacture security systems.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g9Ggsh
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karina D. Rodrigues, Esq.
          KELLEY | UUSTAL , PLC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: kdr@kulaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          Christopher Michael Brown, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI, PLLC
          5473 Blair Road
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com
                  cbrown@fnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy M. Carter, Esq.
          Heather V. Davis, Esq.
          CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5473 Blair Rd.
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 390-4173
          E-mail: amy@clgtrial.com
                  hdavis@clgtrial.com

AFTERPAY US: Faces Miller Suit Over Undisclosed Bank Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFTERPAY US, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-04032-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant misrepresented to the Plaintiff and the Class the use of
Afterpay's buy now, pay later service.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the entire premise of
Afterpay is to provide immediate access to goods and services and
avoid bank fees and interest charges. That is why consumers are
shocked to discover that Afterpay causes significant bank fees and
interest charges.

Using Afterpay's services causes unsuspecting consumers like the
Plaintiff to incur massive fees on their linked bank accounts.
Afterpay misrepresents and omits facts about the true nature,
benefits, and risks of its service, functioning of which means that
users are at extreme and undisclosed risk of expensive bank fees
when using Afterpay. Had Plaintiff been adequately informed of
these risks, she would not have used Afterpay, added the suit.

Afterpay US provides payment services. The company offers an
installment payment service that is free for customers who pay on
time. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4 th Floor
          Washington, D.C, 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

               -and-

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Jeff@kicklawfirm.com

ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH: Alvarado Appeals Ruling in Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eugenia Barahona Alvarado filed an appeal from the
Court's ruling on a remand motion in the lawsuit styled EUGENIA
BARAHONA ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, INC., Case No.
20-cv-3930, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on May 20, 2020.

The Plaintiff has sought to recover wages and benefits allegedly
owed under New York law. The Plaintiff is a former homecare
employee of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court, alleging
that the NY District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

District Court Judge Koeltl held that removal was timely under 28
U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3). Moreover, because the Plaintiff's motion
to remand is denied, so too is the Plaintiff's request for costs
and fees. The Court directed the Clerk to close all pending
motions.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this ruling. The appellate case
is captioned as Alvarado v. Alliance for Health, Inc., Case No.
21-1392, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on June 1, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Eugenia Barahona Alvarado, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

Defendant-Respondent Alliance for Health, Inc. is represented by:

          Felice B. Ekelman, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4005
          E-mail: ekelmanf@jacksonlewis.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Screening Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that Amazon.com Services LLC filed a motion
to dismiss a would-be class action filed in the Eastern District of
California, saying that it has no obligation to pay fulfillment
center workers for time spent undergoing mandatory Covid-19
screenings, which benefits the public in general.

The required screenings, conducted in accordance with government
regulations and guidance -- not just for employees but for all
visitors -- aren't compensable "work" under the Fair Labor
Standards Act because they aren't primarily for Amazon's benefit,
the Thursday motion says. According to Amazon, the screenings
benefit everyone, and its benefit is merely incidental.

Even if considered work-related, the pre-shift health screenings
are "preliminary" to their principle activities, Amazon argues,
likening them to the security screenings the U.S. Supreme Court
found not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
Integrity Staffing Sols. Inc. v. Busk.

Amazon acknowledges an informal FAQ published by the Department of
Labor's Wage and Hour Division states that for certain employees,
"a temperature check before they begin work must be paid because it
is necessary for their jobs."

But according to Amazon, although the screenings may be necessary
for patient-facing health-oriented jobs, it isn't needed for its
warehouse associates, and the guidance isn't entitled to a
high-degree of deference in any event.

The plaintiffs also fail to allege that the "screenings themselves
take any appreciable amount of time," Amazon says. Waiting time is
clearly not compensable, the company says, but the plaintiffs' 10
to 15 minute estimates collapsed the screening and wait time
together.

Amazon advances similar arguments to challenge the plaintiffs'
claims for unpaid wages and overtime under state law.

Amazon distinguishes Frlekin v. Apple Inc., where a California
court found time spent in security screenings compensable under the
state's laws.

First, the security screenings were implemented to prevent theft
and were, as a result, primarily intended for the benefit for the
employer, Amazon says. And second, the employees weren't permitted
to leave the work until the screenings were complete and were
subject to a higher degree of intrusion and control, it adds.

Amazon says the plaintiffs additional claims related to inaccurate
wage statements and payment of wages owed upon discharge fail
because, among other things, they are derivative of the other
non-viable claims.

The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

Amazon is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Plaintiffs
are represented by Hodges & Foty LLP and Parmet PC.

The case is Boone v. Amazon.com Services LLC, E.D. Cal., No.
1:21-cv-00241, motion to dismiss 6/3/21. [GN]

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Osborn-Vincent Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Lesa
Benacquisto, Daniel Benacquisto, Richard Thoresen, Elizabeth
Thoresen, Arnold Mork, Isabella Mork, Ronald Melchert and Susan
Melchert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Express Financial Corporation,
American Express Financial Advisors, American Centurion Life
Assurance Company, American Enterprise Life Insurance Company,
American Partners Life Insurance Company, IDS Life Insurance
Company and IDS Life Insurance Company of New York, Defendants,
Case No. 0:00-cv-01980-DSD, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 15,
2001, the Court issued a final order and judgment in the case, the
Benacquisto Action, approving the class action settlement and
dismissing the complaint. Charles Fotheringham is a class member
who is bound by the terms of the final judgment and settlement.

On June 24, 2015, Fotheringham filed a complaint in New York state
court against Defendants RiverSource Life Insurance Co. and
Ameriprise. He alleged that, when he bought a life insurance policy
in 1997, the Defendants falsely stated that his monthly premium was
$1,200.

On Nov. 10, 2015, the Court enjoined Fotheringham from pursuing the
state court action because it found that his claims arose from, or
were at least related to, the same misrepresentations in 1997 that
were covered by the settlement. Pursuant to the Court's enforcement
order, the New York state court dismissed the complaint, and the
Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court affirmed.

On Dec. 20, 2017, Fotheringham filed a Statement of Claim before
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") alleging that
Ameriprise violated various FINRA rules by (1) recommending
unsuitable investment and insurance products; (2) failing to advise
him of the increasing costs of the 1997 life insurance policy; and
(3) failing to establish an adequate supervisory system.

Ameriprise moved to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that
it precludes the FINRA claims.

Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted in part the Defendant's motion to enforce
settlement and sanctions.  The Court ordered the Estate to dismiss
the FINRA arbitration within 14 days of the Order, and for Judgment
to be entered accordingly.

Plaintiff Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent now seeks a
review of the Court's Order denying its Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction; granting Defendants' Motion to Substitute Party;
and granting Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement.

The appellate case is captioned as Marjory Thomas Osborn-Vincent v.
American Express Financial, et al., Case No. 21-2210, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 1,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on July 12, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent is due
on July 12, 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]

Plaintiff-Appellant Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent is
represented by:

          Karly A. Kauf, Esq.
          SMITH & JADIN
          7900 Xerxes Avenue, Suite 2020
          Bloomington, MN 55431
          Telephone: (952) 236-4171

               - and -

          Roy B. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON & BOGRAN
          5 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 400A
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 635-3400

Defendants-Appellees American Express Financial Corporation, Sued
as: American Express Financial Service Corp.; American Express
Financial Advisors, Inc., American Centurion Life Assurance Company
of New York, Sued as: American Centurion Life Assurance Company;
American Enterprise Life Insurance Company; American Partners Life
Insurance Company; IDS Life Insurance Company; IDS Life Insurance
Company of New York; and G. Allen West are represented by:

          Charles C. Platt, Esq.
          WILMER & CUTLER
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8860

               - and -

          Sydney Haverstock Crowder, Esq.
          AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
          Routiing H27-5223
          5223 Ameriprise Financial Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55474
          Telephone: (612) 671-7120

               - and -

          Randall M. Fox, Esq.
          LEBOEUF & LAMB
          125 W. 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-5389
          Telephone: (212) 424-8000

               - and -

          Kay Nord Hunt, Esq.
          LOMMEN & ABDO
          1000 International Centre
          920 Second Avenue, S.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 336-9341

               - and -

          Fiona B. Ruthven, Esq.
          MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
          1450 Energy Park Drive
          Saint Paul, MN 55108
          Telephone: (651) 361-7179  

               - and -

          Susan Elaine Sheely, Esq.
          BARNA & GUZY
          400 Northtown Financial Plaza
          200 Coon Rapids Boulevard
          Coon Rapids, MN 55433-0000
          Telephone: (763) 780-8500     

               - and -

          James M. Gary, Esq.
          WEBER & ROSE
          2400 Aegon Center
          400 W. Market Street
          Louisville, KY 40202-0000
          Telephone: (502) 357-7313

               - and -

          Robert Stephen Halagan, Esq.
          HALAGAN LAW FIRM
          101 Courthouse Square, 15 Second Street
          Buffalo, MN 55313-0000
          Telephone: (763) 682-8975

ANTIQUE GARAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Montebon Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BENCHER MONTEBON; ANDREA AMAYA; NOE PALMA, and ESTEBAN CUAHQUENTZI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ANTIQUE GARAGE, INC.; A. G. TRIBECA, INC.; and UTKU
CINEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04769 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2021)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.

ANTIQUE GARAGE, INC. owns and operates a Mediterranean restaurant
located in Manhattan, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

AQUOR WATER: Pascual Seeks Blind Consumers' Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUOR WATER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04927-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.aquorwatersystems.com, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that
contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.

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

Aquor Water Systems, Inc. is an outdoor faucet systems company,
headquartered in Port Townsend, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

ARROW SENIOR: Olin-Marquez Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDALL OLIN-MARQUEZ, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ARROW SENIOR
LIVING MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00996-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees at any
      Arrow facility who worked at least 40 hours in any workweek
      and (1) were required to have meal break deduction taken from

      their compensable hours worked; and/or (2) received
      nondiscretionary bonus payments, such as a retention bonus or

      a shift pick-up bonus, for working extra shifts or hours
      beyond what the employee was scheduled to work, beginning
      three years prior to the filing date of this Motion and
      continuing through the date of the final disposition of this

      case;"

   2. approving the proposed Notice and Consent; and

   3. directing that notice be sent to the Potential Opt-In
      Plaintiffs enabling them to join.

This case involves the Defendant's meal deduction and additional
remuneration policies and/or practices. Named Plaintiff has
submitted allegations and evidence that under the policies or
practices, Defendant (1) deducts 30 minutes from its hourly,
non-exempt employees' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are
either never taken or are interrupted with work duties, and (2)
regularly pays its hourly, non-exempt employees a nondiscretionary
retention bonus (which it refers to as a "Sign On Bonus") and/or
shift pick-up bonus that are/is not included in the calculation of
employees' regular rates of pay for purposes of overtime. 3 These
policies and/or practices deprive Defendant's hourly, non-exempt
employees of their hard-earned overtime pay.

Arrow Senior Living manages a collection of communities that offer
varying levels of care including independent living, assisted
living, and memory care.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xoi7nB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

ATERIAN INC: Bronstein Notifies Shareholders of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Aterian, Inc. and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aterian securities between December 1, 2020 and May 3,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ater

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

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/ater 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 Aterian
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.

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.

Contact:

        Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
        Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
        Tel: 212-697-6484
        E-mail: info@bgandg.com
        URL : http://bgandg.com[GN]

ATLANTIC CLOTHING: Underpays Clothing Sorters, Tapia et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANCISCA TAPIA, AURELIA FERNANDEZ, and LORENA TORRES,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated workers,
Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC CLOTHING, LLC and FARAN MOMIN, Defendants,
Case No. 4:21-cv-01785 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2021) challenges the
Defendants' alleged unlawful business plan of not paying overtime
premium to its workers which violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants as clothing sorters,
allege that despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per
week, the Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned
overtime premiums at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, the Defendants paid them the same hourly rate or the
straight time hourly rate for all hours they have worked, the suit
says.

On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated clothing
sorters, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages at the
applicable rate, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, all
costs and attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.

Atlantic Clothing is a clothing company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:20-cv-00553-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton
Jr., entered an order that:

   1. By Monday, July 19, 2021, the Plaintiff may file a motion
for
      class certification. Any motion filed after this deadline
      will be denied as untimely. The Defendant will have 30 days
      to respond to a motion for class certification. The Court may

      set a hearing date at a later date.

   2. The Defendant Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company Doing
      Business as OneBeacon Insurance Group's Motion to Bifurcate
      Discovery is denied.

Atlantic Specialty is located in Plymouth, Minnesota and is part of
the property/casualty insurance carriers industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g9bBLB at no extra charge.[CC]


ATONOMI LLC: Bid to Stay Class Certification Deadlines Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS HUNICHEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ATONOMI LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00615-RAJ-SKV (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order denying the motion
to stay class certification deadlines, and the current case
scheduling order remains in effect.

Judge Vaughan says Movants fail to establish a stay in this matter
would be appropriate or warranted. Movants contend no harm will
result from a stay because it would be short, finite, and occur
during relatively early stages of this case. To the contrary, this
matter has now been pending for more than two years, with the
conclusion of discovery and impending dispositive motion deadline
within sight. A stay would further delay resolution of overdue
class certification proceedings and, Plaintiff asserts, preclude
resolution of any motions for summary judgment.

A copy of the Court's order vailable from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2SggwB2 at no extra charge.[CC]

BNSF RAILWAY: July 9 Deadline for Class Cert. Reply OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Macias, et al., v. BNSF
Railway Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305 (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Toby Crouse entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply to the
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' amended motion to Certify
Class.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

The BNSF Railway is the largest freight railroad network in North
America.[CC]

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROBERTO RIOS-GUTIERREZ; JOSE JUAN MENDOZA-SERVIN; FRANCISCO
JAVIER MARTINEZ-MENDEZ; JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ-ANAYA, and CESAR EDGARDO
AVENDANO-MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM,
INC.; L.C. BRIGGS TURF FARM, LLC; LAWRENCE "LARRY" BRIGGS; CAPEN
BRIGGS; and FELIX RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG
(W.D. Miss., May 28, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as landscapers.

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC. provides lawn and garden
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heather Schlozman, Esq.
          Mark Dugan, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
          E-mail: heather@duganschlozman.com
                  mark@duganschlozman.com

               -and-

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

BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Underpays Gas Royalties, Hayhook Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAYHOOK LTD., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00239-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla., June 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of lease.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of underpaying
royalties owed to the Plaintiff. Under the gas royalty clause of
their lease agreement, the Defendant is required to pay royalties
on gas, including casinghead gas, used off the premises. The
Defendant concealed the systematic underpayment of royalty from the
Plaintiff and Class members by falsely representing on the check
stubs provided monthly to the Plaintiff and the Class that the
Defendant was paying royalty on the full volume and value of
production from their wells, when in fact, it was not. As a result
of the Defendant's alleged breaches, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been damaged through underpayment of the actual
royalty amounts due under the leases.

Hayhook Ltd. is a limited company, with its principal place of
business located at 923 W. Harvester Ave. Pampa, Texas.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP is an oil and gas
company, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
[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
         Telephone: (918) 583-7571
         Facsimile: (918) 584-7847
         E-mail: 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
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 rhudson@midwest-law.com

BURT'S BEES: Goldfarb Sues Over Pet Shampoos' 99.7% Natural Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
MOSHE GOLDFARB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURT'S BEES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04904 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the New York Consumer Protection
from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act and the New York General
Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its pet care
shampoos. The Defendant advertises and labels the shampoos as 99.7%
natural. However, in reality, the products contain synthetic
ingredients. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known of the
presence of synthetic ingredients in the Defendant's products, they
would not have purchased any of the products, or at the very least,
would have paid significantly less for them, says the suit.

Burt's Bees, Inc. is a manufacturer of pet care products, with its
principal place of business at 210 W. Pettigrew St.,
Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Mark Schlachet, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
         43 West 43rd Street, Suite 220
         New York, NY 10036-7424
         Telephone: (216) 225-7559
         E-mail: markschlachet@me.com

CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Canaan Inc . If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ:CAN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=16583&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2021
Class Period: February 10, 2021 - April 9, 2021

Allegations against CAN include that: they concealed that due to
ongoing supply chain disruptions and the introduction of the
Company's next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines -
which had cannibalized sales of the older product offerings -
Canaan's 4Q20 sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year
compared to its fourth quarter fiscal year 2019 ("4Q19") sales and
more than 93% quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter
FY20 ("3Q20") sales.

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

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

Contact:

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



CAREER STRATEGIES: Gonzalez FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ULISES GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CAREER STRATEGIES, INC.; CAREER
STRATEGIES TEMPORARY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. MSC21-00843, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on June 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04171 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Career Strategies, Inc. is a full-service personnel placement and
temporary staffing provider based in California.

Career Strategies Temporary, Inc. is a temporary staffing provider
based in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
          
         John W. Drury, Esq.
         Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606-6448
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: jdrury@seyfarth.com
                 pdevata@seyfarth.com

              - and –

         Eric Suits, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 498-7032
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: esuits@seyfarth.com

CATHAY PACIFIC: Loses Dismissal & Arbitration Bid in Herrera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WINIFREDO HERRERA, et al., Plaintiffs v. CATHAY
PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03019-JCS (N.D.
Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Cathay
Pacific's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Compel
Arbitration.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Winifredo and Macaria
Herrera assert a claim for breach of contract against Defendant
Cathay Pacific based on allegations that Cathay Pacific has failed
to honor its contractual obligation to provide a cash refund for a
flight for which they had purchased tickets that was cancelled as a
result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.  Instead, the
Plaintiffs allege, Cathay Pacific offered them only vouchers for
flight credits that would expire in July 2020, which they were
unable to use.

Cathay Pacific brought a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted
in part and denied in part on Feb. 21, 20221, giving the Plaintiffs
leave to amend.  The Court held, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for breach of contract because: 1) they
relied on the General Conditions of Carriage for subsidiary Dragon
Pacific whereas the applicable contract is the General Conditions
of Carriage ("GCC") of Cathay Pacific; and 2) even if they had
invoked the correct contract, they did not adequately allege that
they satisfied the conditions precedent for receiving a refund
under the Cathay Pacific GCC, namely, that they requested refunds
and surrendered their tickets, or that the conditions were
excused.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Class Action
Complaint, which is the operative complaint.  In their FAC, the
Plaintiffs have relied on Cathay Pacific's GCC and allege
additional facts about their efforts to obtain a refund on their
tickets.  These additional allegations indicate that the
Plaintiffs' requests were made to the third-party booking website
that sold them their tickets, ASAP Tickets ("ASAP), and not to
Cathay Pacific.

ASAP allegedly informed the Plaintiffs that Cathay Pacific "would
only offer an expiring travel voucher, and not a monetary refund."
The Plaintiffs allege that they contacted ASAP rather than Cathay
Pacific after speaking directly to a Cathay Pacific agent at the
airport and being informed that the airline would not be able to
reroute Plaintiffs and that they should book flights with another
airline.  According to the Plaintiffs, the agent assured them that
they would be refunded for the unused portion of their tickets.

The Plaintiffs further allege that when Cathay Pacific cancelled
their flights it sent an email to them stating as follows: "We are
sorry that for operational reasons, your flight has been cancelled.
A full refund of your ticket is available.  If you booked directly
with us, you can request the refund through Manage Booking on
cathaypacific.com. Otherwise please contact your travel agent."

The Plaintiffs allege that contacting Cathay Pacific directly to
request refunds rather than vouchers was "functionally impossible
by inaccessibility of customer service, with wait times of more
than two hours frequently reported."  They further allege that by
its own conduct, Cathay Pacific prevented them from making a direct
refund request from the airline through its website because their
ticket was purchased through a travel agent.

In the Motion, Cathay Pacific contends that in light of the
allegations that the Plaintiffs purchased their tickets through
ASAP, the arbitration agreement that the Plaintiffs entered into
with ASAP when they purchased their tickets applies to their claims
against Cathay Pacific.  It argues that even though the agreement
to arbitrate is between the Herreras and ASAP, the claims they
assert against Cathay Pacific are also subject to arbitration under
the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Cathay Pacific further asserts that the Court should dismiss the
FAC under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for breach of
contract because the complaint still does not allege that the
Plaintiffs satisfied the conditions precedent for obtaining a
refund or that performance of those conditions is excused.  First,
it argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that they requested a
refund from Cathay Pacific or that Cathay Pacific denied such a
request.  Second, it argues that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
alleged that they surrendered the unused portions of their tickets,
which is another condition precedent to receiving a refund.  Third,
Cathay Pacific argues that the Plaintiffs do not allege a valid
excuse for failing to perform the conditions precedent.

Analysis

A. Whether Plaintiffs' Claims are Subject to Arbitration Under the
ASAP Terms and Conditions

While the Plaintiffs do not dispute that when they purchased their
tickets they agreed to arbitrate any claims against ASAP arising
out of or related to ASAP's Terms and Conditions, they contend
their breach of contract claim against Cathay Pacific is not based
on any obligation found in the Terms and Conditions and therefore,
the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply.

Judge Spero agrees.  In the FAC, the Herreras base their breach of
contract claim on Cathay Pacific's obligations under its own GCC,
not on any obligation contained in ASAP's Terms and Conditions.
Further, they allege that they requested a refund through ASAP
because that is what Cathay Pacific instructed them to do.
Conversely, the Herreras do not assert that ASAP engaged in any
misconduct or breached its contractual obligations to them under
the Terms and Conditions.  Nor do the Terms and Conditions
themselves indicate that the failure to provide a refund to the
Herreras was, in fact, based on ASAP's rules.  Rather, the Terms
and Conditions make clear that with respect to refunds, "the
airlines determine the restrictions of the fares, and ITN has no
power to override these restrictions."  Therefore, the Judge
concludes that neither of the circumstances described above applies
and that fairness does not require that the Herreras' breach of
contract claim against Cathay Pacific must be arbitrated.

B. Whether Plaintiffs State a Claim for Breach of Contract

Cathay Pacific contends the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
breach of contract in the FAC because they have not adequately
alleged that the conditions precedent for obtaining a refund in the
GCC were either satisfied or excused.

Judge Spero disagrees.  First, with respect to the requirement that
the Plaintiffs affirmatively request a refund from Cathay Pacific,
the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to show that they complied
with this requirement.  Second, the Judge rejects Cathay Pacific's
argument that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that they surrendered
their "Ticket and all unused Flight Coupons" as required under
Article 11.1.3 of the GCC.  As Cathay Pacific has not pointed to
any authority establishing what it means to "surrender" an
electronic ticket -- and the meaning of this requirement is
anything but clear under the circumstances -- the Judge declines to
hold, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiffs have inadequately
alleged surrender of their tickets based on their expiration.
Rather, he concludes that further development of the record is
required to determine the meaning of this provision of the GCC
under the circumstances here and whether it was satisfied or
excused.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Spero denied the Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ymu2njvj from Leagle.com.


COHERENT INC: Lawrence Sues Over II-VI Merger
---------------------------------------------
Richard Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Coherent, Inc., Jay T. Flatley,
Pamela Fletcher, Andreas W. Mattes, Beverly Kay Matthews, Michael
R. Mcmullen, Garry W. Rogerson, Steve Skaggs and Sandeep Vij,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04193 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2021), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of
Coherent with II-VI Incorporated through its subsidiary Watson
Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's 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 Coherent stockholder
will receive $220.00 in cash and 0.91 of a share of II-VI common
stock for each share of Coherent common stock they own. The
proposed transaction is valued at approximately $6.3 billion.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus filed by the Defendants
failed to provide company stockholders with Coherent's and II-VI's
financial projections and the financial analyses supporting the
fairness opinions provided by the Board's financial advisors, BofA
Securities, Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.

Coherent is a global provider of lasers and laser-based technology
for scientific, commercial and industrial customers. Its common
stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

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


COHERENT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Finger Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COHERENT, INC., JAY T. FLATLEY, PAMELA
FLETCHER, ANDREAS W. MATTES, BEVERLY KAY MATTHEWS, MICHAEL R.
MCMULLEN, GARRY W. ROGERSON, STEVE SKAGGS, and SANDEEP VIJ,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-04217 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a materially false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The proxy statement,
which recommends Coherent stockholders to vote in favor of the
proposed acquisition of Coherent by II-VI Incorporated through
II-VI's subsidiary Watson Merger Sub Inc., allegedly omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the Coherent's and II-VI's financial projections and the
financial analyses supporting the fairness opinions provided by the
board's financial advisors, BofA Securities, Inc. and Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; and (ii) BofA's and Credit Suisse's potential
conflicts of interest. The omissions and false and misleading
statements in the proxy statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder would consider them important in deciding how to vote
on the proposed transaction or seek to exercise their appraisal
rights.

Coherent, Inc. is a global provider of lasers and laser-based
technology, with its principal executive offices located at 5100
Patrick Henry Drive, Santa Clara, California. [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

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Hagens Berman Woos Investors With Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges ContextLogic Inc. investors with significant
losses to submit your losses. A securities class action is pending
and certain investors who purchased shares in the company's
December 2020 IPO or on the open market may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Dec. 16, 2020 - May 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/WISH
Contact An Attorney Now: WISH@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895

ContextLogic Inc. Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that ContextLogic's IPO registration
documents materially overstated the company's business metrics and
financial prospects. Specifically, the IPO registration documents
touted ContextLogic's exponential monthly active user (MAUs)
growth, claiming its then108 million MAUs was a key driver of
revenue growth.

In reality, by the time of its December 2020 IPO, ContextLogic's
MAUs had declined materially and the IPO registration documents
failed to disclose this known trend reasonably likely to materially
impact ContextLogic's profitability.

On Mar. 8, 2021, Context reported disappointing 4Q 2020 and full
year 2020 results, disclosing its MAUs had already "declined 10%
YoY during Q4 to 104 million."

Then, on May 12, 2021, ContextLogic announced poor Q1 2021 results,
including another 7% drop in MAUs to just 101 million, and the
company slashed sales guidance for Q2 2021.

These disclosures caused the price of WISH shares to decline
sharply.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving ContextLogic
overstated MAUs and concealed known trends," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a ContextLogic 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
ContextLogic 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 mailto:WISH@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.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein
         Hagens Berman
         Tel: 844-916-0895
         URL : http://hbsslaw.com[GN]

COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Solis et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Drivers' OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS VILLIMAR SOLIS and ROLANDO CHACON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSTAMAR EXPRESS
CARGO & SHIPPING, INC. and BYRON ARCOS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03126 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021) is a collective and class
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Solis and Mr. Chacon were employed by the Defendants as drivers
from March 10, 2018 until April 25, 2019 and from May 12, 2018
until June 15, 2019, respectively.

The Plaintiffs claim that throughout their employment with the
Defendants, they regularly worked over 40 in a workweek. However,
the Defendants denied them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. In
addition, the Defendants failed to provide them with a wage notice
and with wage statements, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, prejudgment interest,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Costamar Express Cargo & Shipping, Inc. operates a shipping
company. Byron Arcos is an owner, manager, and/or agent of the
Corporate Defendant and exercises operational control over the
Corporate Defendant's operations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

COVETRUS INC: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Pascual Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVETRUS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04931 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
cornerstonevet.vetsfirstchoice.com, allegedly contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
general public through the website. These access barriers include,
but not limited to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b)
empty links that contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d)
linked images missing alt-text.

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

Covetrus, Inc. is a veterinary supply company doing business in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

CR MILL: Fails to Pay Carpenters' OT Wages, Nunez Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY ORDONEZ NUNEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CR MILL WORK LLC, and EDUARDO CONTRERAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00668 (E.D. Va., June 2, 2021) brings
this collective action complaint against the Defendants seeking to
recover unpaid wages and other damages and appropriate relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
carpenter from March 2019 until his resignation in March 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week throughout his employment with the Defendants, typically
worked 6 days a week including all holidays and all other days
except Sunday without taking a break lasting longer than 20
minutes. However, the Defendants did not pay him his lawfully
earned overtime premiums at the applicable overtime rate for his
labor for those hours in excess of 40 for each week. Allegedly, the
Defendants explicitly and willfully misinformed the Plaintiff that
he was not entitled to be paid for overtime hours worked each week
in excess of 40 at the federally required overtime pay rate.

CR Mill Work LLC operates a carpentry and manufacturing enterprise
owned and managed by Eduardo Contreras. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540A Little River Turnpike
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Tel: (703) 256-1800
          Fax: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
---------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY GILLESPIE; TONYA MILLER; TAMI BROWN; and SARAH MANGANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00940-DJH (D. Ariz., May 28, 2021) failed to timely provide
the required "tip-credit notice" under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. operates restaurants. The
Company serves various breakfast, lunch, and dinner dishes such as
pancakes, sandwiches, fried chicken, and ice cream. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nitin Sud, Esq.
          SUD LAW P.C.
          6750 West Loop South, Suite 920
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (832) 623-6420
          Facsimile: (832) 304-2552
          E-mail: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com

               -and-

          Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MONIKA SUD-DEVARAJ, PLLC
          141 E. Palm Lane, Ste. 100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 234-0782
          E-mail: monika@msdlawaz.com


DCI DONOR: Wells Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIAH WELLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 to
50, Case No. 34-2021-00299857, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 3,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00507 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay premiums for missed meal breaks, failure
to pay premiums for missed rest breaks, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to timely pay wages, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair competition.

DCI Donor Services, Inc. is a healthcare company that operates as a
non-profit organization, located in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Barbara A. Cotter, Esq.
         Lisa V. Ryan, Esq.
         COOK BROWN, LLP
         2407 J Street, Second Floor
         Sacramento, CA 95816
         Telephone: (916) 442-3100
         Facsimile: (916) 442-4227
         E-mail: bcotter@cookbrown.com
                 lryan@cookbrown.com

DEPOSITPHOTOS INC: Pascual Sues Over Blind's Equal Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEPOSITPHOTOS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04935 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.depositphotos.com, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that
contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.

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

Depositphotos Inc. is an online stock photos company doing business
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

DREAMSTIME.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pascual Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREAMSTIME.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04933 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.dreamstime.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that contain
no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.

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

Dreamstime.com, LLC is an online stock photos company doing
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
         COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
         300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (929) 575-4175
         Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
         E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

E&R SERVICES: Santos Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR SANTOS, et. al., On
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. E&R
SERVICES, INC, et. al., Case No. 8:20-cv-02737-PX (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
a collective action pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), and for approval and facilitation of notice to
potential class members.

This motion asks the Court to certify Counts I (overtime) and II
(minimum wage) as a collective action under the FLSA. E&R Services,
Inc.

  -- Does not pay workers for all hours worked each day;

  -- Does not pay workers for all recorded hours each week; and

  -- Does not pay time and a half for overtime.

E&R is a construction contractor located in Lanham, Maryland. It is
owned by Emilio Rodriguez, Jr. It has been in business since 2002.

This case is about the compliment of sixty workers who work in the
commercial construction division (though there are more than sixty
workers in the putative class, due to worker turnover). These
workers perform the back-breaking labor required to build and
maintain our streets and sidewalks.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3crg0Hp
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Rubin, Esq.
          THE RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, P.C.
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 208502
          Telephone: (301) 760-7914
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron Z. Uslan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AARON Z. USLAN
          5034 Wisconsin Ave NW, Ste 250
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 350-2900
          E-mail: aaron@aaronuslanlaw.com

ELDER FORD: Hamdorf Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN HAMDORF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELDER FORD OF TAMPA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 127918727 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., June 2, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act for its alleged unlawful conduct
of sending unsolicited prerecorded voice messages.

The Plaintiff asserts that she received a call on her cellular
telephone number ending in 5390 around in April and/or May 2021
from the Defendant by using a prerecorded voice message encouraging
her to trade in her old vehicle and to purchase its products, goods
and/or services. The Plaintiff also asserts that she never provided
the Defendant her prior express written consent to place a call on
her cellular telephone using prerecorded voice message.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has caused other
unsolicited prerecorded messages to be sent to individuals that
caused them actual harm, including the Plaintiff, in the form of
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenience and
disruption in their daily life.

Thus, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from using an artificial or prerecorded voice messages to
contact telephone numbers without the prior express permission of
the called party, as well as actual and statutory damages, and
other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just.

Elder Ford of Tampa, LLC owns and operates a car dealership on
Tampa, Florida which sells new and used automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com


FAIRLIFE LLC: Javed Sues Over Core Power Elite Beverage's Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED JAVED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRLIFE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-04182-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its high protein
milk beverages under the Core Power Elite brand. According to the
complaint, the Defendant represented the product to contain natural
flavor of vanilla and natural flavors. However, contrary to the
representation, the product contains other artificial flavors, such
as piperonal. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
product is sold at a premium price. The Plaintiff would not have
purchased the product if he knew the representations were false and
misleading, the suit alleges.

Fairlife LLC is a dairy producer, with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Hwy. E. Fl. 2
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and –

         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

FIRST CHINESE: Guzman, et al. Appeal Labor Suit Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alvaro Ramirez Guzman, Elida Agustina Mejia Herrera and
Leticia Panama Rivas, filed an appeal from the Court's ruling on a
remand motion entered in the lawsuit entitled ALVARO RAMIREZ
GUZMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. FIRST CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION, Defendant and EUGENIA BARAHONA
ALVARADO, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-3929, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Alvaro Ramirez Guzman, Elida Agustina Mejia Herrera, and Leticia
Panama Rivas ("FCP Plaintiffs") and Eugenia Barahona Alvarado are
former home health aides, who brought separate suits in state court
against their former employer First Chinese Presbyterian Community
Affairs Home Attendant Corp. ("FCP") alleging violations of New
York State and New York City Labor Law, individually and on behalf
of putative classes.

FCP removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging that the Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of
1947 ("LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 185.

The FCP Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court,
alleging that the NY District Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

District Court Judge Koeltl held that removal was timely under 28
U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3). Moreover, because the FCP Plaintiffs'
motion to remand is denied, so too are the Plaintiffs' requests for
costs and fees. The Court directed the Clerk to close all pending
motions.

The FCP Plaintiffs now seek a review of this ruling. The appellate
case is captioned as Guzman v. The First Chinese Presbytarian, Case
No. 21-1391, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on June 1, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Alvaro Ramirez Guzman, Elida Agustina Mejia
Herrera, and Leticia Panama Rivas, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

Defendant-Respondent The First Chinese Presbytarian Community
Affairs Home Attendant Corporation is represented by:

          Douglas J. Klein, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545-4000
          E-mail: douglas.klein@jacksonlewis.com

FIRST FINANCIAL: Jackson Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC and
GURSTEL LAW FIRM, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00078-CMR (D.
Utah, June 2, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to the original creditor. Because the Plaintiff allegedly
fell behind in the payments, the alleged debt was assigned, placed
or otherwise transferred, to the Defendants for collection.
Subsequently on June 3, 2020, the Defendants filed a complaint in
the Second Judicial District Court of Davis County, Farmington
Department against the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the
alleged debt. However, the Defendants only identified the original
creditor, to whom the Plaintiff owed the alleged debt, as
"Plaintiff's predecessor", thereby failing to identify the original
creditor of the debt which overshadowed the protections of 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e, the suit says.

The Defendants violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive and
misleading representations in connection with the collection of the
Plaintiff's alleged debt.

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, litigation costs and
reasonable attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

First Financial Investment Fund V, LLC is a debt collector. Gurstel
Law Firm is a debt collection law firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David McGlothin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

                - and –

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW GROUP
          290 25th Street, Suite #102
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Tel: (801) 392-9324
          Fax: (801) 337-2087
          E-mail: theron@morlg.com


FLINT, MI: Final OK of Crisis Settlement Requested in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
mlive.com reports that the four lead attorneys in the Flint water
crisis settlement have formally asked a federal court judge to give
the $641-million deal final approval after a fairness hearing
scheduled to begin July 12.

Attorneys Hunter J. Shkolnik and Corey M. Stern -- lead attorneys
for Flint residents represented by their own lawyers -- and
Theodore J. Leopold, and Michael L. Pitt -- lead attorneys for a
proposed class-action group -- filed briefs in U.S. District Court
Thursday, May 27, arguing that the settlement is "fair, reasonable,
and equitable."

"This agreement, which comes more than six years after the Flint
water crisis became headline news, is the culmination of years of
vigorous litigation before this Court and extended negotiation
before Court-appointed mediators," the motion filed by Leopold and
Pitt says. "As the Court noted in its order preliminarily approving
the settlement, ‘there may be no amount of money that would fully
recognize the harm the residents of Flint have experienced,
including their anxiety, fear, distrust, and anger over the events
of last seven years.'

"But the proposed settlement provides important and significant
compensation for that harm—as well as long-awaited recognition of
the injuries (residents) suffered as a consequence of the Flint
water crisis and certainty with respect to their claims against the
settling defendants, without compromising their ability to continue
pursuing claims against the non-settling defendants."

Judge Judith Levy gave the settlement preliminary approval in
January and has scheduled a July 12 fairness hearing in which
objections to the deal will be heard.

More than 150 individuals have filed objections to the settlement,
according to federal court records, and many of those have
requested to address the court during the hearing, including former
Flint mayors Woodrow Stanley and Karen Weaver.

But the motions filed also note that more than 85,500 individuals
registered to be a part of the settlement, potentially allowing
them to file claims for damages from the $641-million settlement
fund.

Case special master Deborah Greenspan said that more than 50,000 of
those registrations -- more than half the estimated population of
the city -- appear to be unique and qualified to make claims.

Stern and Shkolnik's motion says the number of residents who
registered to take part in the settlement constitutes a "massive
outpouring of support" and is evidence that the deal has been
"widely accepted by the Flint community."

"Over 50,000 individuals have determined that they want this
settlement approved," the motion says. "Of equal if not greater
import is that only a negligible number of ‘objections' were
filed and of those many actually registered to participate in the
settlement yet chose to voice ‘objections' to minor aspects of
the settlement."

Among those objections have been concerns about the safety and
availability of bone lead scans, which can help those with claims
earn higher awards from the settlement fund.

Stern and Shkolnik's motion called those objections "an excuse" for
attorneys who failed "to adequately represent their clients" by not
having their bones scanned to determine their exposure to lead.

"The program (established by Shkolnik's law firm) was available to
their clients during the period set by the Court's Preliminary
Approval Order," the filing says, "but they did not encourage their
clients to participate ... by scheduling bone lead tests.

"Instead, they objected to the program ...," the motion says. "None
of their objections have been substantiated by facts and evidence,
whether in the form of scientific research or expert
declarations."

The water crisis settlement is the result of mediation between the
state of Michigan and attorneys for Flint residents who claim they
were harmed by Flint water when the city used the Flint River as
its drinking water source in parts of 2014 and 2015.

The city of Flint, McLaren Regional Medical Center, and Rowe
Professional Services later joined in the settlement, entitling
them and their employees to be removed from more than 100 pending
lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in exchange for their
contribution to the settlement fund.

Other defendants, including the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and two Flint water consultants, declined to settle the
cases against them, which are scheduled to continue to be litigated
in court.

The first bellwether trials involving four minor children from
Flint are scheduled to begin Oct. 12 in federal court.[GN]


FPA VILLA DEL LAGO: Seeks Summary Judgment in Lawrence Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LAWRENCE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FPA
VILLA DEL LAGO, LLC, and TRINITY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case
No. 8:20-cv-01517-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of them on
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.

The Defendants say that the Plaintiff Lawrence admits he has not
been harmed as it relates to the facts alleged in this case.

FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC owns and operates The Social 2700, a
private student housing community in Tallahassee, Florida. Trinity
Property Consultants, LLC manages The Social 2700.

The Social 2700 offers two-bedroom and four-bedroom apartments.
Each apartment includes a common area consisting of a kitchen,
in-unit washer-dryer and a shared living and dining space. Each
individual bedroom provides a corresponding private bathroom and is
separated from the common areas by a locking door.

There is no requirement to be an enrolled college or university
student in order to live at The Social 2700. The Plaintiff Lawrence
entered into a residential lease agreement (the Lease) with FPA
Villa Del Lago, LLC, on April 29, 2019. The lease term began August
1, 2019 and was set to end July 31, 2020.

The Plaintiff Lawrence alleges that the debt collection
communications he received related to his debt to The Social 2700
were distressing. The Plaintiff Lawrence, however, admits that his
alleged distress from the debt collection communications did not
prevent him from obtaining a job and did not have "a direct impact
on how [he] was living [his] life."

The  Plaintiff's proposed class definition provides:

   "All residents of The Social 2700 Student Spaces who (1) moved
   out after March 18, 2020, but before the expiration of their
   lease term, and either (a) paid the costs of rent and fees for
   the months of March, April, May, June and/or July 2020, or (b)
   did not pay for these months but were sent debt collection
   communications from the Defendants."

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TIHwtm at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan Vine, Esq.
          Justin Levine, Esq.
          Katherine E. Herald, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          Counsel for Defendants
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL33401
          Telephone (561) 383-9222
          Facsimile (561) 683-8977
          E-mail: jonathan.vine@csklegal.com
                  justin.levine@csklegal.com
                  katherine.herald@csklegal.com

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors that purchased Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ) securities between November 16,
2020 and March 22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until August 2, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

To participate in the action, click
https://www.bespc.com/cases/FREQ

According to the complaint, Frequency Therapeutics began its Phase
2a trial for FX-322 in October 2019. The trial results failed to
live up to the Company's expectations, as they revealed no
discernable difference between FX-322 and the placebo. However, the
Company continued to conduct the trial and released positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. At the same
time, CEO David Lucchino sold over 350,000 shares and earned over
$10.5 million in the months prior to releasing the results of the
Phase 2a trial. On March 23, 2021, Frequency Therapeutics disclosed
disappointing Phase 2a results, revealing that subjects with mild
to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing
measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency Therapeutics'
shares fell 78% from $36.29 to $7.99, losing approximately $955 in
market capitalization.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com.

Contact:

         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Marion Passmore, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 355-4648
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
         Web site: http://www.bespc.com[GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Evans Sues Over 78% Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS, INC. and DAVID L.
LUCCHINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10933 (D. Mass., June 3,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of materially false and misleading statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding Frequency
Therapeutics' business and operations in order to artificially
inflate the prices of Frequency's common stock between November 16,
2020 and March 22, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants released
positive statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings,
and pharmaceutical presentations about the potential of FX-322, a
hearing loss treatment, despite knowing that the Phase 2a trial
results failed to live up to the company's expectations as the
results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the
placebo. When the truth emerged about the disastrous results before
the market opened on March 23, 2021, Frequency's shares fell from
$36.29 to $7.99, a 78% drop, and a loss of approximately $955
million in the company's market capitalization, the suit says.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Woburn, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Amanda Lawrence, Esq.
         Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
         Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
                 tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                 rswartz@scott-scott.com

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Notes of Aug. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of purchasers of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) common
stock between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The case is captioned Evans v. Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-10933, and is assigned to Judge
William G. Young. The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit
charges Frequency Therapeutics and Chief Executive Officer and
President David L. Lucchino with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Frequency Therapeutics common stock during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Frequency Therapeutics
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Frequency Therapeutics class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff of the Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit
or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Frequency
Therapeutics class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
Lead plaintiff motions for the Frequency Therapeutics class action
lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 2, 2021.

Frequency Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company developing a
hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322," which Frequency
Therapeutics has promoted as a potential treatment for patients
with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL"). Frequency
Therapeutics has conducted multiple clinical trials assessing the
safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant of which was a
Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019.

The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit alleges that,
shortly after launching the Phase 2a trial, Frequency Therapeutics
and CEO David L. Lucchino, learned that the Phase 2a trial results
revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the placebo.
The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit further alleges
that, while Frequency Therapeutics' stock price remained
artificially inflated, defendant Lucchino sold over 350,000
Frequency Therapeutics shares, receiving over $10.5 million in
proceeds.

Then, on March 23, 2021, Frequency Therapeutics disclosed deeply
disappointing interim Phase 2a results, revealing that subjects
with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in
hearing measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency
Therapeutics' stock price fell by nearly 78%, damaging investors.

With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion
– in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litigation. The 2020 ISS Securities
Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Contact:

       Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
       J.C. Sanchez
       Tel: 800-449-4900
       E-mail: jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16583&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021

Allegations against FREQ include that: the Company's Phase 2a trial
results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as the
results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the
placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock.

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

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

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]

FRUIT OF THE EARTH: Kenney Sues Over Mislabeled Zinc Lotion
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANN KENNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRUIT OF THE EARTH, INC.; and CVS PHARMACY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01016-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May
27, 2021) is an action alleging that the Defendant falsely labeled
the CVS Health Clear Zinc Sun Lotion in 2.0 fluid oz. and the CVS
Health Clear Zinc Lotion in 4.0 fluid oz. (the "Products").

The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that to obtain an unfair
competitive advantage in the billion-dollar sunscreen market, the
Defendants are exposing consumers to harmful chemical active
ingredients hidden in their sunscreens by fraudulently passing them
off as safe mineral active ingredients. The Defendants have reaped
many millions of dollars through this alleged fraudulent scheme
based on a calculated business decision to put profits over people.
Specifically, the Defendants falsely and misleadingly label certain
of their Sunscreen Products as "Clear Zinc Sun Lotion".

The labeling of the Products with as Clear Zinc Sun Lotion when
they contain nearly the same percentage of chemical active
ingredients is wholly misleading and deceptive, added the suit.

Fruit of the Earth, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The
Company offers sun care, sunless tanning, skin care, and health
care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  Yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com

               -and-

          Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
          Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
          MOON LAW APC
          228 Hamilton Ave., 3 rd Fl
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (619) 915-9432
          Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
          E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                  kevin@moonlawapc.com

GENERAL ATOMICS: Petition for Writ of Mandate in Green Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GENERAL ATOMICS, Petitioner v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent, TRACY GREEN, Real Party in Interest,
Case No. D078211 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, grants General Atomics' petition for
writ of mandate.

Tracy Green sued her employer, General Atomics, based on its
alleged failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements
showing "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay
period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly
rate by the employee."  Green maintained that General Atomics
"failed to identify the correct rate of pay for overtime wages"
because its wage statements showed "0.5 times the regular rate of
pay rather than 1.5."

Ms. Green's operative complaint contains two causes of action.  The
first is a putative class action.  The second is a representative
action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Section
2698, et seq.).  Both causes of action are based on the same theory
of liability, that General Atomics violated section 226,
subdivision (a) by providing wage statements that do not identify
the correct rate of pay for overtime wages.  Green maintained that
the correct rate was 1.5 times the regular rate of pay, and the
wage statements provided by General Atomics showed only 0.5 times
the regular rate.

To test Green's theory of liability, the parties appear to have
agreed that General Atomics would file an early motion for summary
adjudication directed at Green's PAGA claim.  In that motion,
General Atomics contended that its wage statements were lawful.  It
argued that its wage statements complied with section 226 because
they showed the applicable hourly rates -- i.e., the standard
contractual hourly rate and the overtime premium rate -- and the
hours worked at each.  General Atomics supported its argument with,
among other things, a sample wage statement from the Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) showing the overtime hourly rate
as a 0.5x overtime premium.  It asserted that showing a 1.5x
overtime rate would produce noncompliant wage statements in many
common scenarios, including when an employee is paid at multiple
standard hourly rates during a single pay period.

In opposition, Green cited the statutory requirement that overtime
be paid "at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for an employee."  Thus, it argued, a wage
statement that showed an overtime hourly rate other than 1.5x was
not compliant because it did not show the correct, statutory hourly
rate.  Green did not contend that General Atomics had incorrectly
calculated overtime pay (or failed to pay the correct amounts),
only that it did not provide compliant wage statements showing the
correct hourly rate of pay.

The trial court issued a written order denying General Atomics'
motion for summary adjudication.  It noted that the material facts
were undisputed.  General Atomics admitted its wage statements show
a 0.5x overtime premium, rather than a 1.5x overtime rate.  The
court found that the wage statements provided by General Atomics
should have shown the nonovertime hours and overtime hours
separately, with their applicable hourly rates.  By combining
nonovertime hours and overtime hours, and listing the overtime
hours a second time with the 0.5x overtime premium, the wage
statements did not show the 1.5x overtime rate or allow an employee
to easily calculate it.

The court was unpersuaded that showing the 1.5x overtime rate would
be impractical or cause confusion when an employee earns multiple
standard hourly rates during a single pay period.  It wrote,
"Defendant argues an employee never works at the regular rate or at
1.5 times the regular rate, rather the employee works at the base
rate or rates, then a calculation is done which determines the
regular rate and only then is the overtime premium added. While
this may be the method of calculation, the overtime hours are
worked at 1.5 times the regular rate and that is the rate that
needs to be displayed in order to comply with the law and so that
the employee can determine the overtime hours worked and the
overtime rate."

General Atomics filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court
of Appeals challenging the trial court's order denying its motion
for summary adjudication.  The Court of Appeals issued an order to
show cause, and these proceedings followed.

The Court of Appeals concludes the trial court erred by determining
that General Atomics' wage statements violate section 226.  The
wage statements show the applicable hourly rates in effect and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each rate.  In the wage
statements provided by General Atomics, the applicable hourly rates
are (1) the standard hourly rate determined by contract or other
agreement between the employee and the employer and (2) the
overtime premium hourly rate, determined by statute, that must be
added to the employee's standard wages to compensate the employee
for working overtime.  These rates are plainly shown, along with
the hours worked at each rate.

The Court of Appeals adds that while other formats may also be
acceptable, given the complexities of determining overtime
compensation in various contexts, the format adopted by General
Atomics adequately conveys the information required by statute.  It
also allows employees to readily determine whether their wages were
correctly calculated, which is the central purpose of section 226.
Indeed, the alternative format Green proposes would make such a
determination more difficult, rather than less.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals, therefore, grants the
petition for writ of mandate and let a peremptory writ of mandate
issue directing the trial court to vacate its order denying General
Atomics' motion for summary adjudication and enter an order
granting the motion.  General Atomics will recover its costs in the
original proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2k3sxdsm from Leagle.com.

Paul Hastings, Paul W. Cane, Jr. -- paulcane@paulhastings.com --
and Zachary P. Hutton -- zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- for
Petitioner.

Seyfarth Shaw, Jeffrey A. Berman -- jberman@seyfarth.com -- and
Sheryl L. Skibbe -- sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- for the California
Employment Law Council and the Employers Group, as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Diversity Law Group, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Max
W. Gavron -- mgavron@diversitylaw.com; Polaris Law Group and
William L. Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- for Real Party in
Interest.


GENERAL MILLS: Bid for Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL HILSLEY, et al.,
v. GENERAL MILLS, INC. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class
      action settlement is denied.

   2. Motion filed by David Hayes to intervene in this action is
      granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).

   3. The parties, including Hayes, shall forthwith contact the
      chambers of Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major to schedule a
      case management conference.

   4. Any further motion for preliminary class action settlement
      approval shall be filed no later than July 7, 2021.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs maintain that granting the Motion
to Intervene after this action had settled would unduly delay and
prejudice the adjudication of the parties’ rights in this action.
This argument lost its potency with the denial of Plaintiffs'
Preliminary Approval Motion. Furthermore, this action is not
significantly more advanced than the Hayes Action. The complaints
have survived pleading challenges, no class certification or
summary judgment motions have been filed, and neither Plaintiffs
nor Hayes have been deposed. To the extent discovery is more
advanced in this action, it is equally relevant to the Hayes
Action. Accordingly, Hayes' intervention would not cause undue
delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the parties' rights in
this action. The Motion to Intervene is granted."

The putative class action alleges deceptive food labeling. The
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary settlement
approval. David Hayes, a named plaintiff in a related putative
class action pending in the Northern District of Illinois, filed a
motion to intervene, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Court decides
these matters on the briefs without oral argument.

The Plaintiffs, consumers who purchased fruit flavored snacks
manufactured by the Defendant General Mills, brought this putative
class action alleging that the product label was misleading because
it falsely claimed that the snacks had "no artificial flavors" and
were "naturally flavored," although they contained d-l malic acid
as an artificial flavoring. According to the complaint, d-l malic
acid is a "synthetic petrochemical." The Plaintiff claimed that it
"simulates, resembles, and reinforces the characterizing fruit
flavor of the Products."

The initial complaint alleged violations of California Unfair
Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express and
implied warranties. The Plaintiff filed the complaint in State
court. The Defendants removed the action to federal court.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xc12Nx at no extra charge.[CC]


GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Shows Blueprint for Pay Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that a California judge's order allowing a
class of 10,000 women to pursue pay discrimination claims against
Google Inc. offers a roadmap for other plaintiffs seeking to tackle
gender inequity in the workplace, in contrast to other battles
against technology giants that failed to gain traction.

The Google case follows a similar ruling last year in a case
against Oracle Corp., which also received class action status. The
women in that case also survived a motion to dismiss from the tech
giant earlier this year. Trials will likely be set for both
lawsuits in 2022.

While these suits have moved forward, others have faltered.
Workers' attorneys say that there is still a path to reaching the
critical class certification stage, despite a high bar the U.S.
Supreme Court set with a 2011 decision that blocked 1.5 million
female workers at Walmart Inc. from pursuing their discrimination
claims as a group.

"There was an overreaction to that case. Yes, it made it harder to
certify employment discrimination class actions, but it's not at
all impossible," said Pauline Kim, a law professor at Washington
University, who studies workplace law.

In both the Google and Oracle cases, the attorneys sued under
California's equal pay laws, and targeted the companies' use of job
seekers' prior pay to set compensation. This practice has been
banned in a handful of states, advocates including the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission have said that because women are
historically paid less than men, using their previous salary bakes
in pay gaps.

"Both companies have a practice that has a disparate impact," said
Altshuler Berzon's Jim Finberg, who represents the workers in the
Google and Oracle cases. "If you use prior pay you lock in
historical discrimination."

Federal and states courts are mixed on the issue of prior pay as a
defense to equal pay lawsuit claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court has
declined to take up a case that would have considered the
question.

Google argued in court filings that the class shouldn't have been
certified because the case requires "boundless individualized
testimony" for different kinds of work performed by more than
33,000 employees. While attorneys for Google didn't respond to a
request for comment, a company spokesperson provided a statement.

"We strongly believe in the equity of our policies and practices,"
the statement said. "The company conducts a rigorous pay equity
analysis to make sure salaries and bonuses are fair, and will
adjust salaries if needed."

'Substantially Similar'
Female engineers at both Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. failed to
win class-action status for their gender-bias cases and those
rulings were upheld on appeal in 2018 the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. Nike Inc. is facing an ongoing class action
claim in Oregon federal court over pay and promotion practices, as
well.

The Twitter and Microsoft cases were pursued under Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, and not federal or state Equal Pay Act
statutes. Unlike the Google and Oracle cases, they also didn't
allege discriminatory pay based on a common policy of using prior
salary history to set compensation.

Finberg said in some ways Equal Pay Act claims, both under federal
and state law, are easier to certify than Title VII claims, which
have a higher bar to prove discrimination took place. California's
law is more employee friendly, as well, he said, because it
compares jobs that are "substantially similar" rather than
"substantially equal."

The substantially similar standard more closely tracks the science
of how jobs are organized and compares jobs rather than the person
in the jobs, said Kelly Dermody, who represents the Google class.

"That's not where federal law was headed for awhile," said Dermody,
a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco.
"Federal law influences the interpretation of state law, and
sometimes the opposite is true."

She said federal courts sometimes consider equal pay claims in too
narrow a focus. By contrast, state courts in New York and
Massachusetts, along with California, have ruled in favor of
workers in equal pay cases.

Meanwhile gender gaps permeate many industries, from Silicon Valley
to Wall Street and big-box retailers, Dermody said. Data show that
women in the U.S. make 80 cents on the dollar compared to men in
similar roles, and the gap is wider for women of color.

"A lot of companies have massive gender pay gaps. They have told
themselves a narrative that it's okay to pay people differently for
the same job because they had to hire someone at the higher rate to
recruit them.That's not the law and it's never been the law," she
said. "Unfortunately those pay decisions that happen at the start
of their career create massive pay gaps in a short amount of
time."

'New Frontier'
The Google certification ruling "opens a new frontier in the
employment field" in California, said Travis Gemoets, a partner
with Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, who represents
employers. He said it could potentially influence federal equal pay
classes, as well.

"You're gonna see a lot more of this litigation in California,"
Gemoets said, adding that the stakes are high with these types of
claims because there are a lot of highly compensated individuals.

From the employer perspective, he said that so many pay decisions
are highly individualized and they've opposed classes that compare
apples to oranges.

Many companies are striving to address inequities, however, before
they are hit with equal pay lawsuits, Gemoets said.

With exposure "ratcheted up," employers previously reluctant to
take steps to close gender gaps may be more likely to do so to
avoid class action lawsuits, he said.

Class Commonality
There is no question there have recently been additions to some
state equal pay laws that make them more protective against pay
disparities, said Joe Sellers, a Washington, D.C.-based partner at
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, who isn't connected to the Google or
Oracle class actions. Sellers represented the plaintiffs in the
Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes class action that went to the Supreme
Court.

Sellers said the issue of using prior pay has been gaining greater
scrutiny, but courts vary and some are more comfortable allowing
employers to rely on that practice to set pay rates.

He said when a company has a common system for setting pay, that is
a very important feature essential to class certification—and
that's consistent under federal Equal Pay Act claims, as well.

"The key to the certification of the claims was the common system
for setting pay rates and data available for making comparisons for
workers holding same or similar jobs and accounting for the factors
that otherwise explain pay rates apart from gender," he said.

Class certification is a key step, and the advanced study that the
attorneys put forward for Google and Oracle cases show that an
individual plaintiff would likely have a hard time putting together
those resources for an individual pay claim.

"The failure to get a class certified, for most members of the
class, is the end of their claims," Sellers said. "Class
certification itself is not so easy and courts have been raising
that burden over the last 15 to 20 years."

To contact the reporter on this story: Erin Mulvaney in Washington
at emulvaney@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew Harris at
aharris@bloomberglaw.com; Jay-Anne B. Casuga at
jcasuga@bloomberglaw.com [GN]


H.P. SERVICES: Rodriguez-Ortiz Seeks Manual Laborers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RODRIGUEZ-ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H.P. SERVICES, CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01251-RAM (D.N.J., May 19, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged illegal pattern or practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute, and the Virgin
Islands Fair Wage and Hours Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual laborers, who have worked for the Defendants to
perform skilled and manual labor to provide handyman, laborer or
mechanic services, were misclassified by the Defendant as
independent contractors. Allegedly, the Defendant improperly
excluded certain payments it called "fringe" payments from the
regular rate of pay, which resulted to its failure to properly paid
its manual laborers at the proper overtime rate required by federal
law. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual laborers did not
receive their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay, the suit added.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages for himself and other similarly situated manual
workers, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

H.P. Services Corp. provides a wide variety of hardware components,
as well as software and related services to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375

                - and –

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

HONDA MOTORS: Battery Class Action Lawsuit Filed in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Honda battery
class action lawsuit alleges a constant parasitic draw on the
battery causes vital safety functions to fail as the battery fails.
The class action lawsuit includes millions of 2016-2019 Honda
Accord cars and 2017-2019 Honda CR-Vs in the U.S.

The Honda battery lawsuit was filed by four Florida plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Andre Cruz leased a 2016 Honda Accord in June 2016, but
he says the battery died at least three times and he took the
Accord to a dealer after the third battery failure. The Honda
dealership performed a load test and replaced the battery.

Plaintiff Fernanda Nunes Ferreira purchased a 2017 Honda CR-V in
December 2017, but she alleges the vehicle would not start after
being turned off and the battery had to be jumped. The plaintiff
says she took the CR-V to a Honda dealership which replaced the
battery.

Plaintiff Mitchell Bryon Pazanki purchased a 2018 Honda Accord in
2020 but doesn't allege the car had any battery problems.

Plaintiff Dayane Tessinari purchased a 2019 Honda Accord in 2019
but doesn't allege the Accord had any battery problems.

According to the plaintiffs, parasitic battery drain occurs when
electrical components fail to shut down once the vehicle is turned
off, creating a constant drain of the battery.

Honda allegedly concealed the battery drain problems and failed to
warn consumers of the consequences, then the automaker allegedly
failed to fix the problems permanently.

According to the Honda battery class action lawsuit, Honda skipped
legitimate repairs by offering temporary repairs through dealer
technical service bulletins, customer and dealer messages and tech
line articles.

The automaker allegedly knew none of the solutions were permanent
but failed to warn customers about the situation. Accord and CR-V
owners and lessees have allegedly been left with vehicles that
aren't safe and reliable as advertised by Honda.

The lawsuit alleges CR-V and Accord customers overpaid for their
vehicles which now have diminished values because the batteries
drain.

Honda Accord and CR-V customers say they spend their own money to
purchase jumper cables, battery chargers, replacement batteries and
alternators.

The Honda battery class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Cruz, et al.,
vs. American Honda Motor, Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
and Wites Law Firm. [GN]

HONDA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Rodents Chewing Wires
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Honda Motors is facing a
potential class action lawsuit from Jay Caracci, a resident from
Arlington Heights, Illinois, who owned a 2015 Honda CR-V compact
SUV at home in Arlington Heights.

Caracci is suing Honda for not honoring its warranty for damage
caused by rodents chewing wires -- a problem he says is widespread
and well-known to the carmaker.

Honda refused to cover the $500 in repairs under its new-car
warranty. It said the damage was an "act of nature."

Caracci might have moved on, too. But he did some research online
and soon found other car owners also complaining about rodents
nibbling on their wires, which are covered in soy-based
insulation.

And Honda, he discovered, knew this was a problem as, in fact, it
sells a chili pepper-infused anti-rodent tape and even installs
some components pre-wrapped in tape.

So, in 2018, he sued Honda in a lawsuit that's recently been
amended to include new information he says proves Honda was aware
that its wiring was tempting to rodents yet looked the other way.

He's asking a federal judge in Chicago to grant his case
class-action status. That would expand the lawsuit to also include
at least 73,000 consumers who bought or leased 2015-2018 Honda
CR-Vs in Illinois.

His lawsuit says Honda "engaged in deceptive and/or unfair
practices" by failing to warn consumers that rats and other rodents
could munch on its wires, even though its authorized dealers told
the company about "serious vehicle malfunctions."

It also says Honda's wire and wire harness suppliers had informed
Honda that covering the wires with tape would deter rodents and
that Honda directed some suppliers to pre-wrap certain wire parts
-- though it failed to wrap all of the exposed parts.

"Honda's Rodent Tape is designed to wrap around vehicle wiring and
is made with a blend of spicy flavorings that Honda claims will
deter rodents," Caracci's lawsuit says. "However, disclosure of the
need for Rodent Tape is only made after the vehicle is sold,
malfunctions, [is] brought in for repairs, and Honda denies
warranty coverage."

According to his lawsuit, "hundreds" of consumers have complained
to Honda about rodents chewing through wires and causing damage
that required repairs running into the thousands of dollars in some
cases.

In a written statement, spokesman Chris Martin says there's no
proof that rodents find Honda's -- or any other car brand's --
soy-based wiring insulation to be tasty.

"It is a long-established fact that rodents are drawn to chew on
electrical wiring in homes, cars or anywhere else where they may
choose to nest," according to Martin. "Class-action lawsuits have
been filed against a number of auto manufacturers alleging that
certain vehicles contain soy-based wiring insulation and that such
insulations attract rodents to chew on the wiring. Honda believes
that these class actions have no merit."

For years, consumers have reported rodents getting under the hoods
of cars, where they nest and chew on wires. [GN]


HONDA MOTORS: Ridgeline Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Tailgates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Honda Ridgeline
tailgate class action lawsuit alleges 2017-2019 trucks have
defective wiring harnesses that cause failures of safety
components, including the backup cameras.

The three Ridgeline owners who filed the Honda class action lawsuit
complain truck occupants are put at risk, as are other consumers
and surrounding property.

The Honda Ridgeline is equipped with a two-way tailgate that can
open the standard way, vertically, but can also open horizontally
as it swings open.

There is a tailgate wiring harness that has several separate wires
used to transmit data and power to the backup camera. But the
plaintiffs claim defects exist in the wiring insulators, strain
reliefs and the metal conductors inside these wires which are prone
to break.

The alleged premature failure of the wiring causes short circuits
which then cause the backup camera to fail or only work part of the
time.

The Honda Ridgeline class action alleges that when the tailgate is
opened horizontally the tailgate pinches the wiring harness at the
location of the tailgate pivot and causes the wiring coating and
the internal wiring to wear.

The plaintiffs allege the wiring and coating can't withstand the
wear caused by opening and closing the swinging tailgate.

The 2017-2019 Honda Ridgeline tailgate problems are something the
automaker allegedly knows about because dealerships have been
issued technical service bulletins (TSBs). Additionally, Honda
allegedly knew the tailgate wiring harnesses had problems even
before the trucks were sold.

Honda dealers allegedly tell Ridgeline owners that tailgate
complaints are common and replacement tailgate wiring harnesses are
backordered. And because Honda allegedly refuses to issue a Honda
Ridgeline tailgate recall, truck owners are stuck paying for
repairs.

The class action lawsuit also alleges dealers have been told Honda
is collecting Ridgeline affected parts for investigations. But the
automaker has allegedly done nothing for Ridgeline customers.

The Honda Ridgeline class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California: MacTavish,
et al., vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Barnow
and Associates, P.C. [GN]

ILLINOIS: Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Kay v. State Treasurer
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA KAY, on Behalf of Herself and a Class of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHAEL W.
FRERICHS, in His Official Capacity as Illinois State Treasurer,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-19-2271 (Ill. App.), the Appellate
Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, affirms the
judgment of the circuit court of Cook County granting the
Treasurer's motion for summary determination and denying Ms. Kay
leave to amend her complaint.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kay filed a putative class action complaint in
the circuit court of Cook County against Michael Frerichs, in his
official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Illinois, alleging
that he was administering the Illinois College Savings Pool in an
illegal manner.

In 1996, Congress authorized the states to establish "qualified
tuition plans," commonly known as 529 plans, that allow individuals
to make contributions to tax-free investment accounts in order to
pay for higher education.

In 2000, the Illinois General Assembly passed section 16.5 of the
State Treasurer Act (Act) Pub. Act 91-607, Section 5 (eff. Jan. 1,
2000) (adding 15 ILCS 505/16.5).  Under section 16.5(b) of the Act,
the Treasurer has the authority to establish and administer college
savings programs, in which he "may receive, hold, and invest moneys
paid into the Pool and perform such other actions as are necessary
to ensure that the Pool operates as a qualified tuition program."

Pursuant to that statutory authority, the Treasurer's office
established two college savings programs, which comprise the
College Savings Pool (Pool): Bright Start and Bright Directions.
Bright Start is sold directly to, and managed by, participants;
Bright Directions is sold to, and managed by, investment advisors.
Both Bright Start and Bright Directions are trusts with the
Treasurer serving as trustee, as the trust deeds name Illinois's
currently elected treasurer as the trustee.

On Feb. 16, 2018, Ms. Kay filed a putative class action complaint
against the Treasurer, explaining that she has been a participant
in the Bright Start plan since 2013.  The complaint alleged that
the Treasurer improperly managed the Pool.  The complaint contained
five counts: alleging breach of fiduciary duty (count I); alleging
a constructive trust (count II); seeking an accounting (count III);
alleging unjust enrichment (count IV); and a mandamus action (count
V).

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Treasurer illegally
charged fees against the Pool's assets rather than its earnings,
illegally retained excess administrative fees that should have been
returned to the participants, and illegally charged all
administrative fees against fewer than all investment funds,
allowing some funds to incur no fees while others incur more than
their share.  Ms. Kay averred that, therefore, the Treasurer had
violated section 16.5 of the Act and financially harmed the
participants of the Bright Start and Bright Direction programs.

For relief, Ms. Kay sought:

      A. An order requiring an accounting of the income and
expenses related to the State Administrative Fee and Program
Management Fee;

      B. An order requiring the Treasurer to return to the
participants, based on their respective contributions, the State
Administrative Fees and Program Management Fees collected in excess
of actual expenses;

      C. An award of damages incurred as a result of the Treasurer
illegally withholding excess State Administrative Fees and Program
Management Fees, including any earnings that should have accrued on
those excess amounts;

      D. An order requiring the Treasurer to account for penalties
collected;

      E. An order requiring the Treasurer to return to the
participants, based on their respective payments of the State
Administrative Fees, penalties collected in excess of actual
expenses as required by the Act;

      F. An injunction requiring the Treasurer to include the
amount collected as penalties as income for determining the excess
State Administrative Fees collected as required by the Act;

      G. An injunction requiring the Treasurer to return penalties
collected to the participants as required by the Act;

      H. An injunction requiring the Treasurer to take Program
Management and State Administrative Fees from earnings only as
required by the Act, the regulations, and the Declarations of
Trust;

      I. An injunction requiring the Treasurer to assess the State
Administrative Fee on all accounts and investment types as required
by the Act;

      J. An injunction requiring the Treasurer to not assess the
State Administrative Fee or Program Management Fee in any month
where earnings would not cover those fees as required by the Act;
and

      K. All other relief, including attorney's fees and costs, to
which Plaintiff and the Class may be entitled.

On July 6, 2018, the Treasurer filed a motion for summary
determination of a major issue.  His motion asked the trial court
to rule that sovereign immunity limited Ms. Kay's recovery to only
prospective injunctive relief.  He accordingly requested the trial
court to strike paragraphs A-G and K of the complaint's request for
relief.

In response, Ms. Kay argued that sovereign immunity was
inapplicable to the case because she was not seeking damages from
state funds. S he also filed a cross-motion for summary
determination of a major issue, asking the trial court to find that
the Treasurer violated section 16.5 of the Act.

On Oct. 25, 2018, Ms. Kay filed a motion for leave to amend her
complaint.  Her motion explained that her proposed amended
complaint would name the Treasurer in "both his official and
individual capacities," which was "relevant to the sovereign
immunity issue."  The trial court denied her motion, noting that
the Treasurer's duty at issue in the case is a duty that he owes
"only because of his State employment."

On Oct. 7, 2019, following a hearing on the issues, the trial court
entered an order granting the Treasurer's motion for summary
determination, holding that sovereign immunity barred Ms. Kay from
seeking any recovery other than prospective injunctive relief.  In
the same order, the trial court also denied Ms. Kay's cross-motion
for summary determination, which sought a determination that the
Treasurer violated section 16.5 of the Act.

On Nov. 6, 2019, upon the Treasurer's oral motion for a final
judgment, the trial court entered a final judgment dismissing the
complaint entirely since Ms. Kay conceded that her remaining claims
were moot under the amended Act.  It accordingly dismissed the case
with prejudice, "disposing of all matters."

Ms. Kay now appeals those rulings.  She presents the following
issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the
Treasurer's motion for summary determination and ruling that
sovereign immunity barred Ms. Kay from any recovery other than
prospective injunctive relief and that mandamus is inapplicable;
and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Ms. Kay leave to
amend her complaint.  Both parties also ask the Court to decide
whether the 2019 amendments to the Act apply retroactively, an
issue that was briefed before the trial court but not ruled upon.

Discussion

Ms. Kay first argues that the trial court erred when it granted the
Treasurer's motion for summary determination and held that
sovereign immunity barred relief other than prospective injunctive
relief.  She claims that sovereign immunity cannot apply here
because the funds in Trust 668 are not state funds.  Rather, she
asserts that the funds in Trust 668 are "private money illegally
taken from participants and held in a segregated account" from the
general revenue fund, so any judgment satisfied in this case would
not involve "a single dollar of state funds."  She also argues
that, regardless of sovereign immunity, she had a valid mandamus
action to compel the Treasurer to return fees to participants.  She
asks the Court to reverse the trial court's order granting the
Treasurer's motion for summary determination.

The Appellate Court opines that no genuine issue of material fact
exists as to whether Ms. Kay is barred from seeking monetary
damages by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  It finds that
although Ms. Kay claims that the Treasurer acted outside of his
authority, her allegations concern the Treasurer's administration
of the Pool's finances, which is within his statutory duty and to
be performed pursuant to his official capacity.  Indeed, the
Treasurer is the only person with the authority to administer the
funds at issue.  These are the precise circumstances for which the
sovereign immunity doctrine is designed.

Moreover, the monetary relief sought by Ms. Kay further establishes
that sovereign immunity applies to the case.  As the trial court
noted, any damages awarded in this matter would be taken from Trust
668, which would control how the Treasurer manages the remaining
funds and, in turn, control the actions of the State.  And since
Ms. Kay now concedes that the 2019 legislative amendments regarding
the Pool make any prospective injunctive relief moot, there is no
possible relief.

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary determination
on that issue.

Next, Ms. Kay argues that the trial court erred when it denied her
leave to amend her complaint.  She claims that she should have been
allowed to file her proposed amended complaint, which named the
Treasurer in his individual capacity.  Specifically, Ms. Kay argues
that her amended complaint clarified that the Treasurer is the
trustee of Trust 668 and breached his fiduciary duties, rendering
sovereign immunity inapplicable, and so the trial court should have
granted her leave to file an amended complaint naming the Treasurer
in his individual capacity.

The Appellate Court holds that the allegations that the Treasurer
mismanaged the Pool's funds are clearly allegations that relate
directly to his responsibilities as Treasurer and have nothing to
do with his individual capacity.  There is no conceivable way in
which Ms. Kay could allege that the Treasurer's actions as
described in her complaint relate to his individual capacity.
Consequently, Ms. Kay's proposed amended complaint would not have
cured her original defective pleading, such that sovereign immunity
would no longer apply. Therefore, under those circumstances, it
cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying Ms. Kay leave to file her amended complaint.  Thus, the
Appellate Court affirms the trial court's order denying Ms. Kay
leave to file an amended complaint.

Finally, both parties ask to decide whether the 2019 amendments to
section 16.5 of the Act apply retroactively.  The issue was briefed
before the trial court but not ruled upon, as the trial court found
the issue to be moot based on its sovereign immunity ruling.  It is
well established that reviewing courts will not decide moot or
abstract questions and will not review cases merely to establish
precedent.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court affirms the judgment
of the circuit court of Cook County.

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

Matthew Hurst -- mhurst@heffnerhurst.com -- and Matthew Heffner --
mheffner@heffnerhurst.com -- of Heffner Hurst, in Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellant.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, in Chicago, Illinois (Jane Elinor
Notz, Solicitor General, and Carson R. Griffis, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel), for Appellee.


JAY PEAK: Receiver Reaches $32.5M Settlement With MSK
-----------------------------------------------------
Jay Peak Receiver, Michael Goldberg, reached a $32.5 million
settlement with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, generally known as
MSK, for its role in providing legal advice to Ariel Quiros and the
EB-5 projects in the Northeast Kingdom.

To recall, on October 5, 2018, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton and
other counsel filed a putative class action, on behalf of the
putative class plaintiffs named therein ("Putative Class
Plaintiffs"), in the United States District Court for the District
of Vermont captioned Qureshi, et al. v. Mitchell Silberberg &
Knupp, LLP, People's United Bank, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-163 (the
"Putative Class Action"). The defendants included, among others,
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, as successor-in-interest to
Richardson & Patel, LLP, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, David B.
Gordon, and David B. Gordon, a Professional Corporation
(collectively, "MSK"). Subsequently, the Kozyak firm was appointed
Interim Class Counsel in the Putative Class Action ("Interim Class
Counsel").

On May 8, 2019, the Receiver commenced an action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
captioned Michael I. Goldberg, not individually, but solely in his
capacity as Receiver v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-21862-MGC (S.D. Fla.) (the "Receiver Action"). On
December 3, 2020, the court in the Receiver Action issued an order
staying the Receiver Action.

The Receiver is pleased to report that, after years of litigation
in two separate fora, extensive discovery, and two separate
mediations, the Putative Class Plaintiffs, MSK, and the Receiver
have settled the Putative Class Action and the Receiver Action for
Thirty Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($32,500,000.00)
(the "Settlement Amount"). As set forth below, the Putative Class
Plaintiffs have requested that the Settlement Amount be disbursed
by the Receiver on their behalf as set forth in the settlement
agreement attached to this Motion as Exhibit "1" (the "Settlement
Agreement").

The precise terms of the settlement are more fully set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, but in broad terms, the settlement provides
recoveries to the Putative Class Plaintiffs, payment to their
attorneys, an allocation to certain of the Receiver's claims, and
reimbursement of a portion of the Receiver's attorneys' fees. Even
after payment of such amounts, the settlement results in a recovery
to the Receivership Estate of nearly $30 million, from which at
least $20 million shall be used for an interim distribution to
eligible investors with allowed claims. Needless to say, all
Investors and Putative Class Plaintiffs will benefit from this
settlement. The residual funds have been designated in the
Settlement Agreement to be used for the general administration of
the receivership. Based on the current outlook of the Receivership
Estate's financial situation, and given previous settlements, it is
possible that the Receiver will not need all of these residual
funds for general administration purposes and they can, instead,
also be distributed to holders of allowed claims, but given the
uncertainties associated with the COVID- 19 crisis, the funds will
be held for such purposes at this juncture in an abundance of
caution.

In exchange for the Settlement Amount, the Putative Class
Plaintiffs have agreed to: (i) provide the MSK Released Parties4
with broad releases; and (ii) dismiss their claims against MSK with
prejudice and waive any right(s) of appeal. The Receiver has
agreed: (i) to distribute the net settlement proceeds in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement (as defined below) and future orders
of the Court; (ii) to provide the MSK Released Parties with broad
releases; (iii) to seek entry of a bar order enjoining claims
relating to the Jay Peak Resort, AnC Bio, the Burke Mountain Hotel
and/or the SEC Action (as described more fully below) (the "Bar
Order"); and (iv) to dismiss his claims against MSK with prejudice.
The Bar Order would not apply to any actions brought by federal or
state governmental bodies or agencies. The Bar Order also excludes
claims that Ariel Quiros ("Quiros") has asserted in his individual
capacity only, if any, in the arbitration captioned Quiros v.
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP and David B. Gordon, JAMS NY
Reference No. 1425032114 (the "Quiros Arbitration"). Importantly,
as set forth below, the settlement is expressly contingent on the
entry of the Bar Order.

As was the case with the prior settlements brought before this
Court (with parties such as Citibank, Raymond James, Ariel Quiros,
Carroll & Scribner, and Ironshore), the Receiver requests, by way
of this Motion, that the Court approve the Settlement Agreement and
Bar Order by means of a two-step process.

First, the Receiver requests that the Court enter an order
substantially in form and substance as Exhibit A to the Settlement
Agreement (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). The Preliminary
Approval Order preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and
establishes approval procedures -- including providing notice to
parties potentially affected by the settlement, along with an
opportunity to object and participate in the final approval
hearing. The Receiver believes that the Preliminary Approval Order
can be entered without a hearing on the basis of the substantial
matters of law and fact set forth in this Motion, as was the case
with the Receiver's previous settlements. Second, the Receiver
requests that, after the procedures delineated in the Preliminary

Approval Order have been met, the Court enter the Bar Order
substantially in the form and substance as Exhibit B to the
Settlement Agreement, which shall serve as the Court's final order
approving the Settlement Agreement and barring all non-governmental
claims against the MSK Released Parties, as further described
below. (click here for full document(link is external)).

The principal financial terms of the settlement are as follows: the
settlement is for $32,500,000.00, from which the Putative Class
Plaintiffs receive $70,000.00; Interim Class Counsel receives
$1,500,000.00; the Receiver receives $780,000.00 for his fraudulent
transfer claim and $750,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the
balance, $29,400,000.00, being used for the benefit of the
Receivership Estate, with at least $20,000,000.00 (unless funds are
needed to support other assets of the Receivership Estate) going
towards an interim distribution to eligible investors with allowed
claims and $1,750,000.00 being held as an escrow reserve for a
limited period of time in the event anyone violates the Bar Order.
And, as stated above, it is a condition precedent to the
effectiveness of the Settlement Agreement and to the Receiver's
receipt of the Settlement Amount that the Court issue the Bar
Order.

(i) MSK pays, or causes to be paid, $32,500,000.00 after the Bar
Order is issued and becomes Final.

(ii) The Putative Class Plaintiffs, MSK, and the Receiver exchange
the mutual releases set forth in Section 5 of the Settlement
Agreement.

(iii) The Receiver supports, and MSK agrees not to object to, a
payment by the Receiver to each of the Putative Class Plaintiffs in
the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), for a total of
Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00), for their efforts in
bringing the Putative Class Action and procuring the settlement
memorialized in the Settlement Agreement.

(iv) Interim Class Counsel recovers $1,500,000.00 in attorneys'
fees from the Settlement Amount so the Investors need not pay such
amounts.

(v) The Receiver shall use $780,000.00 to reimburse the
Receivership Estate for the fraudulent transfer claim brought by
the Receiver in the Receiver Action.

(vi) The Receiver shall use $750,000.00 to reimburse the
Receivership Estate for the attorneys' fees associated with the
Receiver bringing the Receiver Action.

(vii) The balance of the Settlement Amount, $29,400,000.00, shall
be used for the benefit of the Receivership Estate from which all
Investors and the Putative Class Plaintiffs benefit and which
payments are being made on behalf of the Investors and the Putative
Class Plaintiffs; provided, however, that unless funds are needed
to support other assets of the Receivership Estate, and approval
has been obtained by this Court, at least $20,000,000.00 of this
amount shall be used for an interim distribution to eligible
investors with allowed claims, the exact distribution of which
shall also be subject to the approval of this Court.

(viii) The Putative Class Plaintiffs and the Receiver dismiss their
claims against MSK with prejudice after the Bar Order is issued and
becomes Final.

(ix) The Receiver maintains an escrow reserve from the Settlement
Amount of $1,750,000.00) for one year after the Bar Order becomes
Final to hold the MSK Released Parties harmless, and indemnify and
defend the MSK Released Parties, in the event any person or entity
seeks to bring a claim against any of the MSK Released Parties that
may be prohibited by, or in violation of, the Bar Order (other
than, again, claims asserted by Quiros in his individual capacity
in the Quiros Arbitration, which are excluded from the Bar Order).
[GN]

KIMBALL, TIREY: Lee Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04537 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In spite of renter and consumer protection laws enacted by the
State of California in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Defendant filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the
Plaintiff in the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 1, 2020
seeking possession of the premises, court costs, "past-due" rent of
$2, 441.00, forfeiture of the lease agreement, and accruing damages
of $18.16 per day. The Defendant also sent the Plaintiff an initial
communication. However, the Defendant did not include the statement
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(11) that the Defendant was
attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained
would be used for that purpose. Moreover, the Defendant did not
send the Plaintiff any other written correspondence including the
notices required by 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g(a)(3)-(5) within 5
days of its letter, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for himself and
other similarly situated individuals seeking actual and statutory
damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem proper.

Kimball, Tirey & St. John LLP is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliot Rosenberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELLIOT ROSENBERGER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (310) 894-6921
          Fax: (424) 270-2610
          E-mail: elliot@rosenberger.law

                - and –

          B. Makoa Kawabata, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF B. MAKOA KAWABATA
          10866 Washington Blvd. #3000
          Culver City, CA 90232
          Tel: (213) 534-6446
          E-mail: makoa@kawabata.law

KRAFT HEINZ: Francione Sues Over Kraft Products' Phthalates Content
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE FRANCIONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10928-PBS (D. Mass., June 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its Kraft
Macaroni & Cheese products. The Defendant's products contain
phthalates but it failed to disclose this information to its
consumers or take steps to remove the chemicals on its products.
Had the Plaintiff and Class members known of the presence of
dangerous levels of phthalates in the Defendant's products, they
would not have purchased any of the products, or at the very least,
would have paid significantly less for them, the suit says.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company is an American food company based in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Edward L. Manchur, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD L. MANCHUR, P.C.
         P.O. Box 3156
         Peabody, MA 01960
         Telephone: (978) 333-1013
         E-mail: manchurlaw@gmail.com

LABORATORY CORP: July 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, MARY
CARTER, TENA DAVIDSON, ROBERT HUFFSTUTLER, RAMZI KHAZEN, CHAIM
MARCUS, LILY MARTYN, JONAH MCCAY, HOLDEN SHERIFF, VICTORIA SMITH,
MICHELLE SULLIVAN, SHONTELLE THOMAS, JOSEPH WATSON, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:17-CV-193-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to extend the time within which they may file their
motion for class certification and serve any expert reports up to
and including July 30, 2021.

The Court entered a text Order on March 26, 2021, extending the
Rule 26(f) deadlines for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification and serve any expert reports to June 16, 2021.

Counsel for the Defendant consents to an extension, but only for
thirty days, until July 16, 2021. However, the Plaintiffs
anticipate that an extension to July 30, 2021 will permit adequate
time to conduct the final session of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition,
for a resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt.
74) and to complete the production of documents responsive to
Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for the Production of
Documents.

Laboratory Corporation, more commonly known as Labcorp, is an
American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory
networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary
laboratories.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Sasser, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          Raleigh, NC 27636
          Telephone: (919) 865-7000
          Facsimile: (919) 865-7010
          E-mail: jon.sasser@elliswinters.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Finkel,Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

LIBERTY INSURANCE: TCPA Counsel Loses Millions From $60M Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that a group of plaintiff's lawyers
settle a big class action against a seemingly insured party on
behalf of a class that received unwanted telephone calls. The class
settlement is for over $60 million -- meaning that class counsel
stands to net around $20 million in fees.

The only issue is getting the insurer to pay up.

The policy at issue has an exclusion for claims "arising out of"
invasions of privacy. In order to deny coverage, therefore, the
insurer asserted that the TCPA case at issue "arose" out of an
invasion of privacy.

When the insurer refused to cover the claim, Plaintiffs' counsel --
on behalf of the class -- settled the claim with the insured and
agreed not to enforce the big $60MM+ judgment that resulted in
exchange for the right to sure the insurer for denial of coverage.

The district court ruled in favor of the insurer, concluding that
TCPA cases do "arise out of" invasions of privacy. After all,
that's what the TCPA was designed to do--protect privacy. Class
counsel appealed arguing that the provision was, at least,
ambiguous and that a reasonable consumer would believe that only
common law privacy claims were excluded--not statutory claims like
the TCPA.

In Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 19-12525, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 16279 (11th Cir.  June 1, 2021) the Eleventh Circuit
disagreed with class counsels' arguments and held that TCPA cases
(at least the one before it) do, indeed, unambiguously "arise out
of" invasions of privacy. And the court copiously cited back to the
class lawyer's own complaint and pleadings to prove it.

As a result the policy exclusion was found to apply and the class
lawyers are out millions. The class members also, presumably, lost
a sizable recovery as well. And the insurance company doesn't have
to pay a penny.


The case is JACOB HORN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated as assignees of Ican Benefit Group LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability company, ROBERT VETTER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated as assignees of Ican
Benefit Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability company,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit. [GN]

MARATHON REFINING: Hazlett Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR HAZLETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. C21-00808, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-04238 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all time worked at minimum
wage rate, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to
provide rest breaks, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages due at time of separation
of employment, and unfair business practices.

Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC is a logistics services
provider based in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         William J. Dritsas, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 270-9600
         Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
         E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: mkopp@seyfarth.com

MIMI'S ROCK: Hernandez Sues over Mislabeled Fish Oil Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIMI'S ROCK, CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-04065 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2021) seeks redress
against the Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the
advertising, labeling and sale of its Dr. Tobias Omega 3 Fish Oil
Triple Strength dietary supplement ("Product" or "Supplement").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that contrary to what is
represented on the label, the Product is not fish oil, nor does it
contain a single milligram of Eicosapentaenoic Acid ("EPA") and 600
mg of Docosahexaenoic Acid ("DHA"). Through a chemical process
known as trans-esterification, ethanol, an industrial solvent, is
introduced into fish oil and combined with catalyst to break the
natural triglyceride bonds and cleave the glycerol backbone from
the fatty acid molecules. Fish oil is stripped of hundreds of its
constituent sub ingredients, and the Omega-3s, which include DHA
and EPA, are converted into ethyl esters of fatty acids, the suit
says.

Throughout the class period, the Defendant falsely represented the
fundamental nature of its Product, and as a result of this alleged
false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these Products to
tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California
and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MOBILE GAMING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Newstyle Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEWSTYLE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG)
LTD., Plaintiff and Respondent v. MOBILE GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A159013 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
affirms the trial court's order denying the Appellants' motion to
compel arbitration.

Appellants Mobile Gaming, Fred Hsu, George Weinberg, and Michael
Reaves, joined by Yinchao Wang, appeal from an order denying their
motion to compel arbitration of a lawsuit alleging violations of
federal securities law brought by respondent Newstyle.  The
violations allegedly occurred in connection with Newstyle's
purchase of a cryptocurrency created by CashBet Alderney Limited, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Mobile Gaming.

Newstyle is a Hong Kong-based investment fund with offices in Menlo
Park.  Mobile Gaming is a Delaware corporation based in Oakland,
California.  Hsu, Reaves, and Weinberg are current and former
directors and officers of both Mobile Gaming and CashBet.  CashBet
is based in the Island of Alderney, which is part of the Bailiwick
of Guernsey, a self-governing territory located in the Channel
Islands.

CashBet created a cryptocurrency, the CashBet Coin, for use on an
online gambling platform.  From January through May 2018, Mobile
Gaming offered CashBet Coins by marketing to investors a written
Token Purchase Agreement.  The Token Purchase Agreement gave
investors the right to acquire CashBet Coins from CashBet.  The
parties agree that the Token Purchase Agreement is an investment
contract, and therefore a type of security regulated by federal
securities laws and regulations.

Mobile Gaming filed a Form D "Notice of Exempt Offering of
Securities" ("Form D Notice") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in March 2018 for a securities offering involving
an "Investment contract, Right to Acquire a non-security token in
the Future."

In May 2018, Newstyle purchased over 4.8 million CashBet Coins for
$2 million under a Token Purchase Agreement during an "initial coin
offering."  Under the Token Purchase Agreement, CashBet agreed to
develop and distribute its CashBet Coins, and to make them
available for use on the "CashBet Platform." Reaves and Hsu signed
the agreement on behalf of Cashbet as its directors.  Mobile Gaming
received Newstyle's funds at its Wells Fargo bank account in San
Francisco on May 6, 2018.  The Token Purchase Agreement contains an
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the parties, Newstyle and
CashBet.

On May 1, 2019, Newstyle filed a complaint against appellants for
violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) (15 U.S.C.
Sections 77a et seq.).  The 1933 Act "prohibits the unregistered
offer or sale of securities in interstate commerce, unless an
exemption from registration applies.

Newstyle alleges that Mobile Gaming and its corporate directors and
officers violated section 12(a)(1) of the 1933 Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 77l(a)(1)) by participating in the offer and sale of an
unregistered security for which no exemption from registration
applies under federal securities registration laws.  It contends
that the marketing and sale of the Token Purchase Agreement was an
offering of an "investment contract," a form of security that
should have been registered with the SEC.  It asserts a second
claim against Reaves, Weinberg, and Hsu, alleging individual
liability for Mobile Gaming's securities law violations as officers
and/or directors of the company under section 15(a) of the 1933 Act
(15 U.S.C. Section 77o).  Wang allegedly solicited investors as an
unregistered broker on behalf of Mobile Gaming. The complaint seeks
rescissionary damages, prejudgment interest, and costs of suit.

On June 21, 2019, the Appellants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to stay or dismiss the underlying action.  They
asserted that the terms of the Token Purchase Agreement
"unambiguously require all disputes, other than those relating to
intellectual property, to be resolved through binding arbitration
pursuant to Arbitration (Guernsey) Law."

In opposing the motion to compel arbitration, Newstyle denied it
had agreed to arbitrate any claims against the Appellants.  It
emphasized that it was suing appellants for their actions taken on
behalf of Mobile Gaming, not Cashbet.  Newstyle further argued that
the equitable estoppel doctrine did not apply because Newstyle's
claims arise out of appellants' violation of federal securities
laws, not from any breach of the Token Purchase Agreement.

On Oct. 24, 2019, the trial court denied the motion to compel
arbitration.  The court observed that the Token Purchase Agreement
does not reference expressly or impliedly the purchase of
investment contracts that is the subject of the action.  Nor did
the agreement or its terms and conditions reference Mobile Gaming
or Mobile Gaming's relationship to CashBet.  The court noted that
the agreement pertained to the purchase of CashBet Coins from
CashBet only, and did not state any intent to apply to transactions
between Newstyle and Mobile Gaming.  Further, CashBet, the author
of the agreement, had "made no attempt to extend the coverage of
the arbitration clause to its related entities."  Relying on
Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 541, 552-553, the
court denied the Appellant's motion and concluded they "did not
meet their burden of proving that Newstyle agreed to submit their
claims for violations of securities laws against Mobile Gaming and
its officers and directors to arbitration."  The appeal followed.

On appeal, the Appellants argue that they are entitled to invoke
the contract's arbitration clause under principles of agency and
equitable estoppel.

The Court of Appeals disagrees.  It opines that Newstyle's
securities lawsuit is predicated on Mobile Gaming's actions in
marketing and soliciting Newstyle's purchase of unregistered
securities.  Because there is no evidence that appellants were
acting as agents for CashBet in soliciting investors, and
Newstyle's claims are not dependent upon or inextricably bound up
in the contractual obligations underlying the purchase agreement,
the Court of Appeals concludes that Newstyle's claims are not
arbitrable.  Hence, the order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zbh4d5te from Leagle.com.


MODERN LIGHTING: Faces Li Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANZHOU LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODERN LIGHTING CORP. d/b/a MODERN LIGHTING
d/b/a M D L LIGHTING & FURNITURE; and JIANWEI HU a/k/a JIAN WEI HU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03112-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
September 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 as a salesperson and
warehouse worker.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked 10 hours a day and 6 days a week
with no break and no fixed time for lunch or for dinner. However,
instead of paying him his lawfully earned overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all
the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week as well as
"spread of hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than ten
hours at his promised rate, the Defendant paid him a flat
compensation only. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant
failed to keep full and accurate records; never furnish any notice
of their use of tip credit; failed to provide him and other
similarly situated employees with Time of Hire Notice reflecting
true rates of pay and other information; did not post the required
New York State Department of Labor posters regarding minimum wage
pay rates, overtime pay, tip credit, and pay day; and did not
provide wage statement, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and/or punitive damages, litigation costs and
expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other further legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems necessary.

Modern Lighting Corp. offers anything related to lightings for
home, business or constructions. Jianwei Hu is an officer,
director, managers and/or majority shareholder or owner of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324


NCAA: Liable to College Football Players' TBIs, Holland Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVERETTE HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01498-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind.,
June 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of express contract, and fraudulent
concealment.

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

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

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

NCAA: Stipulation for Order Extending Case Deadlines Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken entered an
order granting the parties' stipulation for extending case
deadlines, and the deadlines set out in the Joint Stipulated Case
Management Order, are superseded as follows:

                      EVENT                     DATE

   Non-Document Fact Discovery         May Commence After decision
                                       on pending motion to dismiss


   Deadline for Plaintiffs to Add      30 days after decision
   Additional Parties or Claims,       on pending motion to dismiss

   or Amend Complaint (Including
   the Filing of Any Consolidated
   Complaint)

   Defendants' Answer                  60 days after decision on
                                       pending motion to dismiss

   Substantial Completion of           August 31, 2021 1
   Production of Documents by
   Parties

   Class Certification Motion          Feb. 22, 2022
   and Supporting Expert Reports

   Deadline to Depose Plaintiffs'      Apr. 29, 2022
   Class Experts

   Class Certification Opposition      May 31, 2022
   and Supporting Expert Reports

   Deadline to Depose Defendants'      June 28, 2022
   Class Experts

   Class Certification Reply and       Aug. 2, 2022
   Expert Rebuttal Report

   Deadline for Supplemental           No supplemental depositions
   Depositions of Plaintiffs'          shall be permitted
   Class Experts                       without agreement of the
                                       parties or leave of the
                                       Court

   Hearing on Class Certification      Aug. 31, 2022 at 2:30 p.m.

   Merits Discovery Cut-Off            Nov. 11, 2022

   Merits Expert Disclosure            Dec. 15, 2022
   (Including Reports) on
   Issues as to Which Party
   Bears the Burden at Trial

   Merits Expert Response              Feb. 10, 2023

   Merits Expert Reply                 Mar. 8, 2023

   Expert Discovery Cut-Off            Apr. 12, 2023

   Plaintiffs’ Dispositive             May 16, 2023
   Motion and Daubert Motions  

The 2 lawsuits are captioned as:

   GRANT HOUSE, et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
   ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (N.D. Cal.);
   and

   TYMIR OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
   situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al.,
   Case No. 4:20-cv-04527-CW (N.D. Cal.).

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rahul Hari, Esq.
          WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 291-9655
          Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
          E-mail: rhari@wilkinsonstekloff.com

               - and -

          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          Rakesh N. Kilaru, Esq.
          Kieran Gostin, Esq.
          Calanthe Cope-Kasten, Esq.
          WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
          2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 847-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
          E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
                  rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
                  kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com
                  ccope-kasten@wilkinsonstekloff.com

NEBRASKA MEDICINE: Settlement in Chacon Class Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CHACON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and LEONARD
BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NEBRASKA MEDICINE, Case No. 8:21-cv-00070-RFR-CRZ (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement.

   -- Solely for purposes of the settlement, the Court
      conditionally certifies the following class pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) (Settlement

      Class):

      The approximately 125,902 persons who were mailed
      notification that their PII was potentially impacted as a
      result of the Data Incident that occurred between August 27,

      2020 and September 20, 2020.

   -- Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Court also
      conditionally certifies the following subclass pursuant to
      Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (Credit Monitoring Subclass):

      The approximately 13,497 persons who were mailed notification

      that their Social Security and/or driver’s license numbers

      were potentially accessed as a result of the Data Incident
      that occurred between August 27, 2020 and September 20,
2020.

      Excluded from the Settlement Class and Credit Monitoring
      Subclass are (i) Nebraska Medicine, the Related Entities, and

      their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class
      Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the
      Settlement Class; (iii) Judge Robert F. Rossiter and his
      staff and family; (iv) Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart and
      her staff and family; and (v) any other Person found by a
      court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal
      law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal
      activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo
      contendere to any such charge.

   -- The Court appoints Gary M. Klinger and David K. Lietz of
      Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP (“Class Counsel”), having
      determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) are fully
      satisfied by this appointment.

   -- The Court hereby appoints Plaintiffs John Chacon and Leonard

      Bradley as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes

      only on behalf of the Settlement Class.

The Plaintiffs report they entered into a settlement agreement with
Nebraska Medicine on May 25, 2021 (Settlement Agreement). Among
other things, they ask the Court to conditionally certify the
settlement class and grant preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and the related documents, including the proposed notice
forms and claim form.

This putative class action arises from an alleged data breach at
defendant Nebraska Medicine. The Plaintiffs John Chacon and Leonard
Bradley filed suit, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, "to obtain damages, restitution, and injunctive relief
for" a proposed class of Nebraska Medicine patients whose personal
and private information may have been impacted by the alleged data
breach.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x8pShi at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs' Counsel are:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON, LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (303) 429-2290
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON, LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
          dlietz@masonllp.com

The Nebraska Medicine's Counsel are:

          Casie D. Collignon, Esq.
          Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 764-0600
          E-mail: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com
                  mpearson@bakerlaw.com

NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Toribio Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Toribio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New England Greens LLC, Defendant, Case No.
712620/2021 (N.Y. Sup., June 2, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary damages, excluding treble
and/or punitive damages, costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys and
experts and reimbursement of expenses and such other and further
relief for violation of New York General Business Laws.

New England Greens operates as "Vibrant Health," a company into the
marketing and sales of health products throughout the State of New
York and throughout the country. Toribio contests Defendant's claim
of "Super Natural," as shown on its label, saying that their
products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients such as
magnesium stearate and silicon dioxide. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Tel: (845) 483-7100
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


NEW SCHOOL: Aubrey Suit Seeks Tuition Refunds Over School Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLLYN AHRENS AUBREY, STEVEN BABOUN, KAETEN J. BONLI, JINGRUO
CHENG, LYDIA K. CROUSE, KAREN DIAS, CAROLINE A. GARCIA, TERE
GARCIA, AMANDA JOHNSON, JAVARIUS JONES, TANIA KHOURI, JOSEPHINE
LEE, RAE LAVANDE PELLERIN, JESSICA SALDAN͂A, CORALINE JINGYAN WENG
and SNOW XUECAN YE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW SCHOOL, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04915 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment.

In this class action, the Plaintiffs seek damages or restitution of
tuition and fees paid to the Defendant with respect to the spring
term of 2020 and any other period during which the Plaintiffs and
the Class have paid or will pay tuition and fees and the Defendant
has failed or will fail to provide them with the education it
promised them. More specifically, the Plaintiffs seek recovery in
this case for breach by the Defendant of its specific promises made
concerning and in connection with their courses of study, including
but not limited to promises of studio-based, hands-on, in-person,
on-campus education with access to specialized studios, facilities,
equipment, and faculty necessary to the Plaintiffs' courses of
study, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs are former or current students at the Parsons School
of Design, one of the five major colleges comprising Defendant The
New School.

The New School is a private New York State-chartered research
university with headquarters located at 66 West 12th Street, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Martin E. Karlinsky, Esq.
         Bonnie H. Walker, Esq.
         103 Mountain Road
         Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY 12520
         Telephone: (646) 437-1430
         Facsimile: (917) 623-9102
         E-mail: martin.karlinsky@karlinskyllc.com
                 bonnie.walker@karlinskyllc.com

OAK STREET: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Street
Manufacturing Company, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Oak Street Manufacturing Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03213
(E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021).

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

Oak Street Mfg -- https://www.oakstreetmfg.com/ -- in Monticello,
IA manufactures restaurant furniture including booths, table tops,
restaurant chairs, restaurant barstools, table bases, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


OK FOODS INC: Johnson Slams Employee Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Landon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. O.K. Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00561 (W.D. Okla., June 2, 2021), seek injunctive and
other equitable relief, damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on all amounts awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses and such other relief resulting from negligence,
breach of implied and express contract, invasion of privacy and for
breach of fiduciary duty, covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

O.K. Foods, Inc., is an Arkansas corporation with numerous
hatcheries, farms, feed mills, and processing plants across the
country with its corporate headquarters located in Fort Smith,
Arkansas. Their current and former employees accuse O.K. Foods of
failing to protect their sensitive personal identifying information
including names, Social Security numbers, birthdates and addresses,
after an unknown third party gained unauthorized access to an OK
Foods employee email address that contained certain highly
sensitive and unencrypted employee data between April 22, 2020 and
April 30, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
             tjb@federmanlaw.com

             - and -

      M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829


ORLANS PC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Garland Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal of
the case, FREDDIE GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ORLANS, PC; LINDA
M. ORLANS; ALISON ORLANS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1527
(6th Cir.).

Orlans, PC, a law firm acting on behalf of Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage Inc., sent a letter on law-firm letterhead to Freddie and
Linda Garland.  The letter said Wells Fargo had referred the
Garlands' loan to Orlans for foreclosure.  But the letter also said
that "while the foreclosure process had begun," "foreclosure
prevention alternatives" might still be available if the Garlands
reached out to Wells Fargo.  It informed the Garlands that Wells
Fargo might have already sent a letter about possible alternatives,
and it explained how the Garlands could contact Wells Fargo "to
attempt to be reviewed for possible alternatives to foreclosure."
The letter's signature was typed and said, "Orlans PC."

Freddie Garland says that the letter confused him because he was
unsure if it was from an attorney.  And he says that the letter
"raised his anxiety" by suggesting "that an attorney may have
conducted an independent investigation and substantive legal review
of the circumstances of his account, such that his prospects for
avoiding foreclosure were diminished."

Mr. Garland alleges that Orlans sent a form of the letter to tens
of thousands of homeowners and that it did so without having any
attorney provide a meaningful review of the homeowners' foreclosure
files, so the communications deceptively implied they were from an
attorney.  Both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
Michigan's Regulation of Collections Practices Act (RCPA) prohibit
misleading debt-collection communications that falsely represent or
imply they are from an attorney.  Garland brought class-action
claims under both acts against Orlans and its principals.

The district court dismissed Garland's FDCPA claim and declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his RCPA claim.

Discussion

The Appellate Court explains that to sue in federal court, a
plaintiff must have standing under Article III of the Constitution,
which "limits the judicial power to resolving actual 'Cases' and
'Controversies,'" citing Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946
F.3d 855, 860 (6th Cir. 2020).  The oft-repeated constitutional
standing test has three elements: The plaintiff must have (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision," citing Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).

The Sixth Circuit opines that Garland runs into trouble under the
first two factors.

A. First Factor

To have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact
-- "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical."

Garland's complaint asserts that Orlans violated the RCPA and FDCPA
by sending misleading letters that confused him and made him
anxious.  The Sixth Circuit holds that none of the "injuries" that
the Sixth Circuit can tease out of Garland's complaint satisfy
standing's concreteness requirement.

Under Spokeo, Garland has standing if his complaint sufficiently
alleges that 1) Orlans' suspected FDCPA and RCPA violations caused
him concrete harm or 2) the violations in and of themselves create
standing because Congress "conferred the procedural right to
protect a plaintiff's concrete interests and the procedural
violation presents a material risk of real harm to that concrete
interest.

So the question that the Appellate Court resolves is whether
Garland has sufficiently alleged that the statutory violations
caused him individualized concrete harm.  And his allegations come
up short.  Garland's alleged injuries are not concrete enough to
support standing.  Garland's complaint alleges two injuries --
confusion and anxiety.  Both are intangible, so the Appellate Court
analyzes them under Spokeo's intangible-harm framework.

The anxiety analysis is not as easy, but Garland's anxiety
allegation also fails, the Appellate Court says.  A bare anxiety
allegation is not the key to federal court for three reasons.
First, a bare allegation of anxiety is an intangible harm without
"a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been
regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit."  Second, Garland has
not shown that anything in the RCPA and FDCPA suggests that the
legislatures intended to make anxiety cognizable.  Third, Garland's
anxiety is too speculative to qualify as an injury in fact because
it is merely a fear of a future harm that is not "certainly
impending" -- an injury insufficient under Supreme Court
precedent.

B.  Second Factor

Mr. Garland's anxiety allegation also fails standing's traceability
requirement.  Garland's complaint runs into trouble under Buchholz
as well.  In Buchholz, the Sixth Circuit held that Buchholz's
allegations were self-inflicted and thus not traceable to the law
firm's letter.  It concluded that "the cause of that anxiety falls
squarely on Buchholz because he chose not to pay his debts--and now
fears the consequences of his delinquency.  So the anxiety that
Buchholz alleged is not traceable to anyone but him."  The only
thing the letter had done was remind him that his creditors had not
forgotten him.

Simply stated, the anxiety Garland alleges is not because of
anything Orlans wrote.  Whether from the pen of an attorney or not,
the letter said nothing that even remotely implied Garland's chance
of avoiding foreclosure was "diminished."  Indeed, the letter took
no position on that issue; it just said alternatives might be
available if Garland contacted his lender.  "The cause of"
Garland's ultimate fear of foreclosure "falls squarely on" his own
shoulders "because he chose not to pay his debts" and "feared the
consequences of his delinquency."  Ultimately, Garland's anxiety,
like Buchholz's, "is not traceable to anyone but him."  And so he
"cannot establish standing based on his allegations of anxiety."

Disposition

The Sixth Circuit affirms, but on grounds that differ from those
articulated by the district court.  Simply put, Garland lacks
standing to assert either of his claims, so the Court lacks
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/wzzbc64f from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Andrew J. McGuinness -- drewmcg@topclasslaw.com -- ANDREW
J. MCGUINNESS, ESQ., in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. I.W.
Winsten -- iwinsten@honigman.com -- HONIGMAN LLP, in Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Andrew J. McGuinness, ANDREW J. MCGUINNESS, ESQ., in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. I.W. Winsten, Andrew W. Clark,
HONIGMAN LLP, in Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.


OVASCIENCE: Bids to Strike & Dismiss Dahhan Securities Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FADI DAHHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVASCIENCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.), Judge
Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied:

    (i) OvaScience, Inc., Michelle Dipp and Jeffrey Young's
        Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint; and

   (ii) Longwood Fund, L.P., and Longwood Fund GP, LLC's Motion
        to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

OvaScience is a fertility company launched in 2011.  It has
developed to the point of commercialization only one potential
treatment.  That treatment, known as AUGMENT, involves harvesting
mitochondria from [a woman's immature egg cells (also called egg
precursor cells or EggPC cells)] and injecting them into her egg at
the time of [in vitro fertilization (IVF)] in order to supplement
the energy level in the egg and to address problems caused in the
development of newly formed embryos by inadequate energy in the
cell division process.

On Sept. 29, 2015, the Defendants revealed that OvaScience had only
35 commercial patients in 2015, and that the majority of those
treatments occurred in September 2015.  OvaScience's stock price
dropped by 40.98% on the day of the announcement, and fell further
the following trading day.

The action was initiated on March 24, 2017. Over the course of the
litigation, the Court appointed Freedman Investments LLC ("Freedman
Family") as the Lead Plaintiff and granted class certification.

Freedman Family's First Amended Complaint alleged that Defendants
OvaScience, Michelle Dipp, and Jeffrey Young ("Original
Defendants") violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Count I
alleged that OvaScience and Dipp artificially raised the market
price of OvaScience's stock by disseminating false and misleading
information and failing to disclose material facts, in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. C ount II alleged that Dipp and Young were derivatively
liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as they were
"controlling persons" of OvaScience during the relevant period.
The Original Defendants moved to dismiss both claims, and the Court
denied the motion.

Under the court's Scheduling Order, deadlines to file motions
seeking leave to add new parties or to amend the pleadings to
assert new claims or defenses will be controlled by Fed. R. Civ. P.
15.  In December 2019, while discovery was ongoing, the Lead
Plaintiff notified the Court that information obtained through
discovery sometime between March and November 2019 raised the
prospect of Section 20(a) liability for Longwood Fund, L.P., and
its general partner, Longwood Fund GP, LLC and its founding member,
Richard Aldrich ("New Defendants").

Because the five-year repose period for the claim would run later
that month, the Lead Plaintiff requested that the Court adjudicates
a forthcoming motion seeking leave to amend on an expedited basis.
The Court proposed, and the parties agreed, that the Lead Plaintiff
instead would file its Second Amended Complaint prior to the
statute of repose running but that the complaint would remain
subject to a motion to strike on the ground that it did not satisfy
the Rule 15 standard for amending a complaint.  The Lead Plaintiff
then filed the Second Amended Complaint, restating the first two
Counts and adding Count III against the New Defendants, on Dec. 10,
2019.

Count III in the Second Amended Complaint asserts derivative
liability against the New Defendants under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Namely, the Lead Plaintiff alleges that Longwood
Fund and Aldrich exercised control over Dipp and OvaScience, and
that they exerted this control to make material misrepresentations
and omissions to investors in order to inflate the market price of
OvaScience stock.

Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that, in 2010,
Aldrich, together with Dipp and Cristoph Westphal, co-founded the
Longwood Fund and operated the Longwood Fund as its members.  The
investing strategy for the Longwood Fund was to create and invest
in science-based companies that develop novel solutions for
important medical problems.  However, the Longwood Fund was not
merely a passive investor in these companies; instead, the Longwood
Fund would take an active management role in the companies it
invested in.

Two weeks later, the Lead Plaintiff and the Original Defendants
submitted a joint request to stay proceedings so that they may
engage in mediation.  On the parties' subsequent request, the Court
lifted the stay and set a briefing schedule for the Original
Defendants' anticipated motion to strike.  The Original Defendants
then filed the Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint and
the Longwood Fund filed the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

The parties subsequently requested a further stay for mediation,
and the case remains stayed for mediation except as to the pending
motions.

The pending motions contend that Count III is untimely as pled and
thus subject to dismissal on the pleadings.

Discussion

The 28 U.S.C. Section 1658(b) provides that the Section 20(a) claim
"may be brought not later than the earlier of (1) 2 years after the
discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years
after such violation."

The Defendants argue that the Section 20(a) claim against Longwood
Fund and Aldrich is untimely based on the pleadings because the
Lead Plaintiff alleged in the First Amended Complaint that
OvaScience "revealed the truth' about AUGMENT on Sept. 28, 2015,"
and that the Lead Plaintiff had therefore "either discovered or
should have discovered the facts supporting the alleged Exchange
Act violations on September 28, 2015, at the latest."  Furthermore,
they argue that the relationship between the New Defendants and
OvaScience was publicly available and discoverable by the time
OvaScience "revealed the truth" in 2015.  Thus, the Defendants
argue, not only did the limitations period for the underlying
claims against OvaScience lapse by two years after the Sept. 28,
2015 reveal, but so did any claim against the New Defendants as
"controlling persons" of OvaScience.

Judge Talwani holds that the Defendants' argument makes two
mistakes of law.  First, she finds that the Defendants mistakenly
apply an "inquiry notice" standard for the point when the two-year
limitations period began to run on the underlying Exchange Act
claim against OvaScience.  Second, the Defendants improperly assume
that, because the Lead Plaintiff had discovered (or should have
discovered) that the New Defendants had an ability to control
OvaScience as early as 2015, that therefore Lead Plaintiff had
discovered (or should have discovered) that the New Defendants
actually controlled OvaScience by that same time.  Once these
mistaken premises are put to the side, there is no basis for the
Judge to conclude, on the pleadings and other allowable documents,
that the Second Amended Complaint is untimely.

While the 2012 SEC Form 10 and the 2015 SIRF article would have
certainly provided the Lead Plaintiff with notice that it should
investigate the Longwood Fund's involvement with OvaScience, the
documents do not constitute the facts of a Section 20(a) violation
as there is no evidence in either document that the Longwood
Defendants actually controlled OvaScience's operations.  Indeed,
based upon the allegations in the pleadings (and the documents
referenced therein), the facts known to the Lead Plaintiff about
the New Defendants' involvement at the time the First Amended
Complaint was filed parallel the type of facts alleged in Aldridge
and Sanders; that is, while the Lead Plaintiff had discovered
evidence suggesting a close relationship, what had been discovered
did not imply a hierarchical relationship with the New Defendants
at the top.

The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are categorically
different as they suggest (at least according to the Complaint)
that the Longwood Defendants were running the show.  And because
evidence of "actual control" constitutes a necessary element of the
violation, the Judge cannot conclude, based on the pleadings and
other allowable documents, that the Section 20(a) claim against the
New Defendants is untimely as a matter of law.

For these reasons, Judge Talwani concludes that the new Section
20(a) claim is timely as pled.  The Motion to Strike and the Motion
to Dismiss are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sjd2tspu from Leagle.com.


P&L ENTERPRISES: Atain Specialty Files Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P&L Enterprises LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Atain Specialty Insurance Company, a
Michigan corporation v. P&L Enterprises LLC, a South Carolina
Limited liability company; Trehel Corporation, a South Carolina
corporation; Overlook Horizontal Property Regime Homeowners
Association Inc.; Kenneth Chochran, Miki Chochran, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated; Case No. 6:21-cv-01673-DCC
(D.S.C., June 4, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

P & L Enterprises, LLC -- http://www.pandlse.com/-- is located in
Greenville, South Carolina and is part of the Roofing, Siding, &
Sheet Metal Contractors Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lindsey W. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          LW COOPER JR. LAW OFFICES
          36 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 375-6622
          Fax: (843) 375-6623
          Email: lwc@lwcooper.com


PALM BEACH, FL: To Spend $850K for Defense in Two Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Morse of Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach County in
Florida is set to spend up to $850,000 retaining outside legal help
to defend itself in two lawsuits seeking class-action status.

One of the lawsuits seeking class-action status, filed in U.S.
District Court, claims the county violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act by misclassifying more than
600 people as volunteers.

The county uses volunteers at three of its four golf courses --
Osprey Point, Okeeheelee and Park Ridge -- as well as at its
teaching facility at John Prince Golf Learning Center.

These golf volunteers work a number of jobs, including bag drop
attendant, ranger and starter's assistant, and are asked to perform
tasks such as welcoming customers, retrieving and cleaning golf
balls from the driving range and patrolling the course.

Instead of getting paid, volunteers are compensated with discounted
and free golf rounds of golf, the lawsuit said.

"As a result of this 'volunteer program,' (the county's) golf
facilities obtain free labor as (the county) hires volunteers to
perform the same labor for which private golf facilities must pay
employee proper wages," the lawsuit said.

The three golf volunteers named in the lawsuit worked at Osprey
Point for three to four years starting in January 2016.

One volunteer alleged he was retaliated against because he
questioned the legality of the volunteer program. In October, after
a countywide furlough, he asked to be put on the schedule but was
told "his services were no longer needed and that he was
terminated."

The county maintains that the golf volunteers were just that --
volunteers, not county employees. The help-wanted advertisements
for these positions specifically state that the county was looking
for volunteers.

"Plaintiffs did not, and cannot, allege that they ever expected to
receive compensation for their volunteer work," the county
countered in a motion to dismiss some of the counts.

The county agreed to shell out up to $500,000 for legal counsel in
the lien interest lawsuit, and up to $350,000 for the golf course
volunteer lawsuit. County Attorney Denise Marie Nieman, who will be
involved in the legal strategy for these cases, confirmed that
these are the only active suits against the county seeking
class-action status. [GN]

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: A. W. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as A. W., by and through her Next Friend B.W.
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C., Case No. 4:21-cv-00119,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on June 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61181-RAR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C. --
http://www.pediatrix.com/-- provide services in neonatal intensive
care units (NICUs) across Kansas City.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          1201 W Peachtree Street, NE
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: (404) 881-7584
          Fax: (404) 253-8497
          Email: kristy.brown@alston.com


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Rumely Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Rumely, Abigail Bean, Jessica Jay,
Matias Soto, Gregory Baum, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Pediatrix
Medical Group, Mednax, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00152, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on June 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61180-RAR to the
proceeding.

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

Pediatrix Medical Group, a MEDNAX company --
http://www.pediatrix.com/-- offers accredited continuing education
resources for physicians and advanced practice providers across a
variety of specialties.[BN]


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Thornton Alerts Investors to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Peloton Interactive, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PTON). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased PTON stock or other securities between
September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Peloton to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Peloton

The case alleges that Peloton and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
in addition to the tragic death of a child, Peloton's Tread+ had
caused a serious safety threat to children and pets as there were
multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety was not a priority
to Peloton as Defendants were aware of serious injuries and death
resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or suggest a halt of
the use of the Tread+; and (3) as a result of the safety concerns,
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission declared the Tread+
posed a serious risk to public health and safety resulting in its
urgent recommendation for consumers with small children to cease
using the Tread+.

Interested Peloton investors have until June 28, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

CONTACT:

       Thornton Law Firm LLP
       1 Lincoln Street
       State Street Financial Center
       Boston, MA 02111
       www.tenlaw.com/cases/Peloton [GN]



PLAQUEMAKER.COM INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaquemaker.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Plaquemaker.com, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04983 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

PlaqueMaker -- https://www.plaquemaker.com/ -- is an online portal
for personalized awards, name tags, signs and gifts.[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


PLASTIC RESEARCH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plastic Research and
Development Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Plastic
Research and Development Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04982
(S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Plastic Research And Development Corporation doing business as
PRADCO -- http://www.pradcooutdoorbrands.com/-- manufactures
sporting and athletic goods.[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


PRA HEALTH: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Morgan Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRA HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.; COLIN SHANNON;
JEFFREY T. BARBER; ALEXANDER G. DICKINSON; LINDA S. GRAIS; JAMES C.
MOMTAZEE; GLENN D. STETTIN; and MATTHEW P. YOUNG, Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01018-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal., May 27, 2021) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff against PRA Health Sciences, Inc. ("PRA
Health" or the "Company") and the members of PRA Health's Board of
Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which PRA Health will be acquired by ICON plc ("ICON")
through ICON's subsidiaries ICON US Holdings Inc. ("US Holdco") and
Indigo Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed
Transaction").

According to the complaint, on April 28, 2021, PRA Health filed a
Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement")
with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that PRA Health
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the Company's and ICON's financial projections; (ii)
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's
financial advisors, BofA Securities Inc. ("BofA") and UBS
Securities LLC ("UBS"); (iii) potential conflicts of interest faced
by BofA and UBS; and (iv) the background process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction.

Unless remedied, PRA Health'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 says.

PRA Health Sciences, Inc. is a global contract research
organization. The Company provides outsourced clinical development
services to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL: Class Deal in Donaldson Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DONALDSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. PRIMARY
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Civil No. ELH-19-1175 (D.
Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland grants:

    (i) the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
        Settlement Agreement; and

   (ii) the Settlement Class Counsel's Petition for Attorneys'
        Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class
        Representatives' Service Awards for Primary Residential
        Settlement.

Plaintiffs Richard Donaldson and Walter and Dawn Sperl filed suit
in April 2019 against Defendant Primary Residential.  The suit, a
putative class action, alleges a kickback scheme between PRMI and
All Star Title, Inc., a defunct Maryland-based title and settlement
services company.  The Plaintiffs, who are mortgagors, assert that
PRMI made referrals of their loans and the loans of others to All
Star for title and settlement services and, in exchange, All Star
laundered payments to PRMI, largely through third party marketing
companies.  As a result of the scheme, the Plaintiffs allegedly
paid inflated settlement fees.

Of relevance now, the Plaintiffs allege that the kickback scheme
violates Section 8(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(a) (Count I).  The Complaint,
which is about 60 pages in length, is supported by more than 40
exhibits.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an "Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement of All Claims,"
seeking, inter alia, preliminary certification and approval of the
proposed class action settlement in the matter.  By Order of Jan.
11, 2021, Judge Hollander granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and the settlement class, and directed notice
to be issued to the class members, in the form prescribed.

The Settlement Agreement defines the "Settlement Class" as "all
individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally
related mortgage (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602) originated or brokered by
Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. for which All Star Title, Inc.
provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the
borrower's HUD-1, between October 1, 2009 and January 31, 2016."
The terms "Settlement Class Member" and "Settlement Class Members"
refer to members of the Settlement Class.

According to Dorothy Merryman, the Settlement Administrator, the
defense counsel provided her with a list of 160 "unique loan
numbers," pertaining to 160 loan transactions, along with the names
of 160 borrowers and 72 co-borrowers.  This constitutes the "Class
List."  The borrowers on those loans are the Settlement Class
Members.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of benefits to
each Class Member in "an amount equal to 220% of the Section 1100
fees reflected on the Settlement Class Member's final HUD-1
Settlement Statement for the subject loan, less the amount of Line
1108 fees reflected on the Settlement Class Member's final HUD-1
Settlement Statement for the subject loan ((Section 1100 — Line
1108) × 2.2 = Settlement Benefit)."  According to the parties, the
average per loan recovery is expected to exceed $2,200.  At the
hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel clarified that a borrower and a
co-borrower are treated as one person for the purpose of receipt of
the Settlement Benefit.

PRMI will fund the Settlement Benefits by way of a Common Fund
administered by the Settlement Administrator, Dorothy Merryman.
The Settlement Agreement is a "direct pay" model, which means that
Settlement Class Members who do not timely exclude will be mailed
Settlement Benefits without having to file a claim or other request
for benefits.   Any amount remaining in the Common Fund more than
three hundred days after the final judgment will be remitted by the
Settlement Administrator to PRMI, with interest.

The parties submitted the Declaration of Ms. Merryman.  She
explains in detail the notice and claims process that was used, in
conformity with the Order granting preliminary approval of the
Settlement.  On Feb. 1, 2021, Merryman mailed the approved notice
as to the "160 records on the Class List."  Of the 160 mailings,
twenty notices were returned as undeliverable.  Of those, Merryman
was able to identify 17 updated addresses and remailed those
notices.  However, two of those seventeen notices were returned as
undeliverable, and Merryman was unable to identify updated
addresses.  Merryman also "provided a website," at which members
could view the Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and other relevant
documents.

Notably, Ms. Merryman avers that no objections to the Agreement
were received.  Nor did she receive any requests for exclusion from
the Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties have stipulated
that all Class Members who do not timely exclude themselves from
the Settlement will release Primary Residential and other
"Releasees," as that term is defined in the Agreement, from the
"Released Claims," which include, in part, "any and all claims
related to the matters alleged and claims asserted in the
Litigation and/or claims that could have been alleged therein."

Now pending is a "Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement Agreement."  With the Motion, the parties submitted a
"Proposed Final Approval Order Relating to Class Action Settlement"
and a "Proposed Final Judgment Relating to Claims Asserted Against
Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc."  Also pending is "Settlement
Class Counsel's Petition for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of
Expenses, and Class Representatives' Service Awards for Primary
Residential Settlement."

On May 28, 2021, the Court conducted a class action fairness
hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for final approval of the
settlement.  No objections have been lodged to the motions.  Nor
has any Class Member asked to opt out.

Examining the fairness and adequacy of the Settlement, because the
settlement amount was decided during arms-length negotiations,
Judge Hollander is persuaded that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  She says it satisfies Rule 23(e).

With respect to the certification of the class, Judge Hollander
opines that Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied.  First, all
members of the class have common claims.  Second, the claims of the
named Plaintiffs in the case are typical of the class.  Third, the
Plaintiffs do not have any interests that are contrary to the
Settlement Class.  Fourth, the Plaintiffs' counsel is
well-qualified for the litigation.  Fifth, the question of the
existence of the scheme is a common question that predominates over
any individual questions.  Lastly, class treatment is superior to
other forms of adjudication because of the likelihood that the
Class Members would not otherwise be aware of their claims against
Defendant.  For these reasons, and because no objections have been
made, the Judge will grant the "Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement Agreement."

Next, Judge Hollander considers the Fee Motion, which includes a
request for a service award for the Class Representatives.  The
Settlement Class Counsel has asked for approval of an award of
attorneys' fees equal to one-third of the Common Fund, plus
expenses in the amount of $7,000.  The Common Fund is estimated to
be valued at $347,158.55.  Thus, counsel's requested fee is
$115,719.52.  Notably, the attorneys' fees will not come from the
funds designated for Class Members.  The request is uncontested by
the Defendant. And, no Class Members have objected.

In the Judge Hollander's view, the requested fee is reasonable.
The work performed by the Plaintiffs' counsel included the initial
investigation and development of the case; filing of the Complaint;
engaging in initial settlement negotiations; motions practice; and
a two-day mediation.  Additional time was devoted to preparing
settlement documentation and paperwork for Class notification.
Moreover, the legal and factual issues posed by the case were
complex. Indeed, the review of documents needed to verify the
allegations would have been painstaking.

Finally, Judge Hollander will grant the Plaintiffs' request that
the Court approves a service award of $1,000 for Donaldson and
$1,000 for Walter and Dawn Sperl, combined, to be paid by the
Defendant, in addition to the other settlement benefits.  She says
the proposed service award for the Plaintiffs of $1,000 represents
less than 1% of the Common Fund.  Additionally, neither the
Defendant nor the Class Members have opposed the Plaintiffs'
request.

Accordingly, Judge Hollader will grant the Fee Motion, awarding
attorneys' fees in the amount of $115,719.52; costs in the amount
of $7,000; and a service award of $1,000 to Donaldson and a joint
award of $1,000 to Walter and Dawn Sperl.

In light of the foregoing, Joint Motion and Fee Motion are granted.
A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34mmu3p2 from Leagle.com.


PROFESSIONAL COATINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graves Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA GRAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVE MITCHELL; and PROFESSIONAL COATINGS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00457-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 27,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Graves was employed by the Defendants as customer service
representative.

Professional Coatings Inc. offers finish for wood products for
residential and commercial projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Greg Ivester, Esq.
          WH LAW WE HELP
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Tel: (501) 891-6000
          E-mail: chris@wh.law
                  greg@wh.law


PROLLERGY CORPORATION: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prollergy
Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Prollergy Corporation,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04976 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Prollergy Corporation laos known as Ready, Set, Food! --
https://readysetfood.com/ -- operates as a health supplement
manufacturing company .[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


PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
("PureCycle") f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ("Roth Acquisition")
(NASDAQ: ROCH) that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired PureCycle
securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired PureCycle
securities during the Class Period may, no later than July 12,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact

      Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
      James Maro, Esq.
      Tel: (484) 270-1453
      Adrienne Bell, Esq.
      Tel: (484) 270-1435
      Toll free: (844) 887-9500;
      E-mail at info@ktmc.com;

Or click
https://www.ktmc.com/purecycle-technologies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=purecycle


PureCycle commercializes a purification recycling technology,
originally developed by The Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter &
Gamble"), for restoring waste polypropylene into resin with
near-virgin characteristics. Roth Acquisition was organized as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").

The Class Period commences on November 16, 2020, when PureCycle
issued a press release announcing plans to become a publicly traded
company via a merger with Roth Acquisition. On March 18, 2021,
PureCycle and Roth Acquisition announced that their anticipated
business combination had been completed after having been approved
by Roth Acquisition's stockholders at a special meeting held on
March 16, 2021. Throughout the Class Period, PureCycle touted the
technology it licensed from Procter & Gamble.

However, the truth was revealed before the markets opened on May 6,
2021, when analyst Hindenburg Research published a report on
PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC
Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall Street." In the report,
Hindenburg wrote, among other things, that: (1) Hindenburg "spoke
with multiple former employees of" PureCycle executives' former
companies "who said PureCycle's executives based their financial
projections on 'wild ass guessing', brought companies public far
too early, and had deceived investors"; (2) unlike most "leading
plastics companies [who] publish peer reviewed studies that detail
their advancements in the field," Hindenburg was "unable to find a
single peer reviewed study in any scholarly journal citing or
reviewing PureCycle's licensed process"; (3) "multiple competitors
and industry experts . . . explained that PureCycle faces steep
competition for high quality feedstock, and called the company's
financial projections into question"; and (4) "PureCycle represents
the worst qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential
example of how executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while
hoisting unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections
onto the public markets, leaving retail investors to face the
ultimate consequences." Following this news, PureCycle's stock
price fell from a May 5, 2021 closing price of $24.59 per share to
a May 6, 2021 closing price of $14.83, a one-day drop of
approximately 40%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter &
Gamble was not proven and presented serious issues even at lab
scale; (2) the challenges posed by the availability and competition
for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed
technology were significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections
were baseless; and (4) as a result, PureCycle's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

PureCycle investors may, no later than July 12, 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 http://www.ktmc.com/[GN]

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCT)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

During the class period, PureCycle Technologies, Inc. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter &
Gamble is not proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale;
(ii) the challenges posed by the availability and competition for
the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed
technology are significant; (iii) PureCycle's financial projections
are baseless; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in PCT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16584&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

        J. Klein, Esq.
        Empire State Building
        350 Fifth Avenue
        59th Floor
        New York, NY 10118
        E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
        Tel: (212) 616-4899
        Fax: (347) 558-9665
        www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

RESIL HEALTH: Magnet RX Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resil Health, LLC.
The case is styled as Magnet RX, LLC, individually, and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Resil
Health, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03184 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Resil Health -- https://resilhealth.com/ -- provides an affordable,
convenient and above all a seamless private scheduling platform in
coalition with a strong network of healthcare partners such as
licensed pharmacy professionals, clinical laboratories, and
consulting physicians.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


ROMEO POWER: Vincent Wong Notes of June 15 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Romeo Power, Inc.
(NYSE:RMO). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE:RMO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/romeo-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16585&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - March 30, 2021

Allegations against RMO include that: (i) Romeo had only two
battery cell suppliers, not four, (ii) the future potential risks
that Defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage
had already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo's
business, operations and business prospects, (iii) Romeo did not
have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and
ramp up production in 2021, (iv) Romeo's supply constraint was a
material hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth, and (v) Romeo'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. Given the supply
constraint that Romeo was experiencing during the Class Period,
Defendants had no reasonable basis to represent that the Company
had the ability to meet customer demand and that it would support
growth in revenue in 2021.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

SALEM UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salem University,
LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Salem University, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05034 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021).

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

Salem University -- https://www.salemu.edu/ -- is a Private
for-profit university in Salem, West Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHLEICH USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schleich USA Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Schleich USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04981
(S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Schleich USA -- https://www.schleich-s.com/en/US/home -- is a
leading provider of realistic animal figures.[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


SEQUIUM ASSET: Nix Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Pamela Nix, formerly known as:
Pamela Nickson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sequium Asset Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00760-ACA (N.D.
Ala., June 4, 2021).

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

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC -- http://www.sequium.com/-- is a
legitimate collection agency founded in 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Email: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Fed Reserve Hints at Govt-Backed Cryptocurrency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers at Goodwin wrote on JD Supra an article titled "Federal
Reserve Hints at Government-Backed Cryptocurrency"

On May 24, 2021, Lael Brainard, a member of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve, said during a CoinDesk virtual conference
that "the Federal Reserve is stepping up its research and public
engagement" on the possibility of a U.S. central bank digital
currency. Brainard cited the need to understand the "benefits and
risks" of such digital currencies in the United States before
commenting that the Federal Reserve Board will publish a paper this
summer outlining the Board's "current thinking" on the subject.

In her remarks, Brainard noted four developments leading the Board
to "sharpen[]" its focus on a central bank digital currency. First,
"the growing role of digital private money" may cause
"fragment[ation]" of "payment systems" in the United States, which
could in turn result in "consumer protection and financial
stability risks." Second, Brainard said that the recent "migration
to digital payments" spurred, in part, by the Covid-19 pandemic
raised questions concerning how to "ensure consumers retain access
to a form of safe central bank money." Third, as foreign countries
have developed and even launched their own digital currencies,
Brainard stressed the need for the United States to be "at the
table in the development of cross-border standards" regarding
digital currencies. Fourth, and finally, Brainard explained "the
benefits of" central bank digital currencies, including their
ability to "deliver[] payments more quickly, cheaply, and
seamlessly through digital means" -- a benefit that came to light
as a result of the particular difficulties the government faced in
issuing recent pandemic-relief payments.

Brainard went on to discuss several top-of-mind considerations in
exploring a central bank digital currency, including the associated
benefits and potential "costs and risks." Importantly, although
Brainard touted the benefits of a central bank digital currency,
she explained that it should "complement," rather than replace,
traditional "currency and bank accounts." She also cautioned that
there are open questions about how these digital currencies could
impact "financial stability," such that "safeguards" would be
needed, including those to ensure user privacy. Brainard concluded
her remarks by explaining the "technological and policy" research
the Federal Reserve will need to conduct, in addition to that which
is already underway, and stressing the need for the Federal Reserve
to step up its research efforts concerning a "digital version of
the U.S. dollar."

Brainard's remarks come after other countries, such as China, have
implemented or explored implementing their own government-backed
cryptocurrencies. Brainard heavily noted such developments,
stressing, if nothing else, the need for the United States to be
involved in crafting the standards for the use of such currencies
in cross-border payments.

THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMS DISMISSAL OF SECURITIES FRAUD CLASS ACTION
AGAINST SHUTTERFLY INC. REGARDING ALLEGEDLY MISLEADING FINANCIAL
PROJECTIONS

On May 21, 2021, in Garfield et al. v. Shutterfly, Inc. et al., No.
20-cv-2249 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a securities class
action against Shutterfly and members of its management team.
Former shareholders alleged that Shutterfly made misleading
statements back in 2019 when the company included "downside"
financial projections in a proxy statement used to obtain approval
of a proposed merger with Apollo Management IX, L.P.

In June 2019, Shutterfly engaged Morgan Stanley to prepare a
fairness opinion after Shutterfly entered into a merger agreement
in which Shutterfly was acquired at $51 per share. As part of that
opinion, Morgan Stanley reviewed two sets of projections created by
Shutterfly management: a "base-case" scenario, and an alternative
set of projections meant to "represent[] a downside view that gave
greater weighting to the risk and challenges facing Shutterfly."
Subsequently, Shutterfly authorized issuing a proxy statement to
its shareholders to obtain approval of the merger, which discussed
Morgan Stanley's fairness opinion, and included estimated
share-value ranges based on the two sets of Shutterfly projections.
The proxy statement explicitly explained that Morgan Stanley's
analysis was based on both the downside and base-case projections.
Shutterfly shareholders approved the merger in August of 2019, with
the merger closing the following month.

In December 2019, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 premised on Shutterfly's allegedly "false and
misleading disclosures" in purportedly omitting material
information concerning the financial projections and Morgan
Stanley's fairness opinion. Shutterfly moved to dismiss the
complaint, arguing, among other things, that plaintiff failed to
identify any material misstatements in the proxy. The district
court agreed, granting Shutterfly's motion and dismissing the case
with prejudice.

Plaintiffs appealed, focusing on only one allegedly misleading
statement raised at the district court level: the proxy's inclusion
of share-value ranges premised on Shutterfly's downside
projections. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal, holding that the challenged statement "fail[ed] to
establish a cause of action because it was not misleading," and
even if it was, it was not materially so. The court first reasoned
that "the only statements of fact" in the proxy were that Morgan
Stanley calculated the share values and how it estimated those
values based, in part, on Shutterfly's downside projection --
neither of which was false or misleading. Notably, in each instance
where the proxy included downside projection values, it: (1)
disclosed that Morgan Stanley calculated those values; (2)
described the analysis undertaken; (3) included them alongside
base-case projection values; and (4) cautioned that the values
should not be relied upon as an "independent assessment of
Shutterfly's actual value." Nor, according to the court, were the
downside-projection values "inherently misleading," as the proxy
accurately disclosed values grounded in the base-case projection
and that Shutterfly believed these projections more likely to
occur. The court also concluded that, even if the downside-share
values were misleading, they were not material, because the proxy
"included specific and substantive disclosures and warnings" such
that no reasonable investor could conclude that the downside
projections should be used to estimate Shutterfly's actual value.

NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS FEDERAL LOSS CAUSATION STANDARD NOT MET IN
INVESTOR'S STATE LAW SECURITIES ACTION AGAINST UBER

On May 19, 2021, in Irving Fireman's Relief & Retirement Fund v.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-16667 (9th Cir.), a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action suit brought
against Uber and its former CEO, alleging securities fraud under
California Corporations Code sections 25400(d) and 25500. The panel
concluded that the heightened pleading standards applicable to
claims of fraud under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act applied to Plaintiff's
state law claims brought in federal court and that Plaintiff had
failed to meet those pleading requirements.

The dispute stemmed from a series of "alleged corporate scandals"
at Uber, which allegedly resulted in a 30% drop in Uber's value.
These "scandals" allegedly came to light in early 2017, when a
former Uber engineer published allegations of sexual harassment at
the company. Over the remainder of 2017, alone, Uber was: (1) sued
for theft of trade secrets; (2) the subject of news reports
exposing Uber programs which allegedly attempted to "circumvent"
restrictions on Uber's operations in certain jurisdictions and
collect information on its rival, Lyft; (3) accused of violating
South Korea law (prompting DOJ inquiries into Uber's foreign
dealings); and (4) the subject of additional news reports that it
suffered a major data breach. On top of all this, Bloomberg
reported rampant bribery allegations against Uber in Asia.
Allegedly in reaction to these events, investors dramatically
marked down the value of their Uber investments, resulting in an
estimated decline in Uber's value by 30%.

Plaintiff's operative complaint followed, alleging that Uber made
false and misleading statements and omissions about the company to
induce investors to purchase Uber securities. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged that Uber misled investors by "concealing
material risks to their business" -- allowing Uber to sell its
securities at "inflated prices" -- and that, when these risks "came
to light," Uber's value plummeted. The district court dismissed the
operative complaint for failure to state a claim, assuming that the
heightened pleading standards under federal law applied to
Plaintiff's state law claims and holding, among other things, that
Plaintiff failed to properly allege loss causation.

The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. First, the panel disagreed with
Plaintiff that it need only meet a less-rigid loss causation
standard under California law -- in other words, that Plaintiff's
allegations of "mere inflation" or the purchase of "overvalued"
securities was enough. The panel reasoned that California law
provided only "limited" guidance as to how loss causation should be
applied, and that what guidance it did provide did not support
Plaintiff's contention that "mere inflation" sufficed. Second,
because the panel found there to be no state law "directly
addressing" the loss causation issue, it turned to the federal loss
causation standard, holding that none of Plaintiff's allegations
met that standard. According to the panel, Plaintiff failed to
allege how revelations of the Uber scandals actually "caused the
resulting drop in Uber's valuation" let alone "link" this drop to
"any particular scandal or misstatement." Instead, Plaintiff's
allegations simply "lump[ed] together the effects of the various
alleged scandals" and did not provide the panel with the type of
"assurance" that the loss-causation theory was "plausibly based in
fact," as required.
TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SEC CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND DENIES UNDER ARMOUR'S BID TO DISMISS INVESTOR SECURITIES
SUIT

On May 19, 2021, in In re: Under Armour Securities Litigation, No.
17-cv-00388 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett, of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, denied Under Armour,
Inc.'s latest attempt to dismiss investor claims brought under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.
Judge Bennett held that the putative class action claims could
survive because the allegations in the complaint -- when coupled
with the court's judicial notice of an SEC cease-and-desist order
-- were sufficient at the pleading stage.

The original complaint, the first in a series of securities suits
against Under Armour and its former CEO, surfaced in February 2017,
with investors alleging that the company "misrepresented" customer
demand for its products. After consolidation of the suit with other
similar suits, the District of Maryland dismissed the consolidated
amended complaint. Undeterred, in November of 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint, again claiming violations of
federal securities law premised on Under Armour's and its CEO's
allegedly "false and misleading statements" concerning "demand for
Under Armour products" and the company's financial wellbeing. The
court dismissed that complaint too -- for failure to adequately
plead scienter -- prompting plaintiffs to appeal the decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While the appeal
was pending, news reports surfaced that the SEC was investigating
Under Armour regarding its sales practices, prompting plaintiffs to
move the district court for relief from the earlier judgment of
dismissal. The court granted this request, allowing plaintiffs to
file a third amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint in October of 2020,
asserting violations of Sections 20A, 20(a), and 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that Under
Armour and its CEO misled investors by falsely claiming that demand
for Under Armour goods "was strong" between 2015 and 2016.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that defendants "led investors
to believe" that Under Armour's "revenue growth streak" was
"intact," when actually, demand for Under Armour product was
declining. It also alleged manipulation of Under Armour's financial
results "by pulling sales forward from future quarters." Again,
Under Armour and its CEO moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing
that it did not "plead adequate factual details." While the motion
to dismiss was pending, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order
for, among other things, violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and imposed a $9 million civil penalty, all
related to Under Armour's alleged sales practices.

In denying defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Bennett found that,
when considering plaintiffs' allegations alongside the SEC order,
the third amended complaint could "survive." Although noting that
the SEC order was by no means "dispositive" evidence, Judge Bennet
reasoned that it "lend[ed] support" to plaintiffs' allegations by
"provid[ing] specific factual allegations" regarding the Under
Armour's alleged improper sales practices, and also supported the
allegations that investors were misled as to how Under Armour was
"meeting or beating" its "revenue estimates." According to Judge
Bennet, this undermined defendants' argument that the complaint did
not allege "adequate details" concerning Under Armour's
pull-forward sales practices. Nor was Judge Bennet convinced that
the SEC order could not speak to defendants' scienter, an element
required for plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims. Although not
required by Sections 17(a)(2),(3) or Section 13(a) upon which the
SEC order was based, the order nonetheless "include[d] specific
allegations that the company and its top officials" knew about "the
potential misleading nature" of Under Armour's undisclosed sales
practices. Finally, Judge Bennett found the SEC order supported
plaintiffs' allegations of falsity, pointing to the order's
allegations that "Under Armour was aware" its revenue projections
"were much lower than . . . predicted," but nonetheless "continued
to report its financial results without disclosing" the nature of
its sales practices and "their effect on future revenue and
growth." [GN]

SILK EXOTIC: Meatheney Hits Tip Credit, Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Meatheney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Art's Performing Center, LLC, Downtown
Juneau Investments, LLC, Scott Krahn, Lyle Messinger and Doe
Defendants 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00683 (E.D. Wisc., June
2, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip
credit, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Statute and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Silk Exotic on Water," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where
Meatheney worked as an exotic dancer. She was compensated
exclusively through tips from customers and did not receive payment
for any hours worked at their establishment. However, she was
required to share her tips with other non-service employees who do
not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys,
and the bouncers, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Urban, Esq.
     URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
     Urban Taylor Law Building
     4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
     Milwaukee, WI 53212
     Telephone: (414) 906-1700
     Email: jurban@wisconsininjury.com

            - and -

     John P. Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Telephone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: john@kristensenlaw.com



SNACKLINS INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snacklins, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Snacklins, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05000
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021).

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

Snacklins -- https://snacklins.com/ -- offers crunchy, remarkably
airy, low-calorie plant crisps made from simple ingredients: yuca,
mushrooms, and onions.[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


SUNFLOWER BANK: McCollam Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fee Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen McCollam, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Sunflower Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01484, (D. Colo., June 2, 2021) seeks monetary damages,
restitution and declaratory relief from Sunflower Bank for the
assessment and collection "overdraft fees" on accounts that were
never actually overdrawn in breach of contract, and for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

McCollam claims that the checking account contract documents
discussing overdraft fees promise that WesBanco will only charge OD
Fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover
them as stipulated in Sunflower's adhesion contract.

Sunflower is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers in Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Texas,
Arizona, Missouri and Kansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taras Kick, Esq.
     THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
     815 Moraga Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90049
     Phone: (310) 395-2988
     Fax: (310) 395-2088
     Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
     Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
     KALIEL PLLC
     1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
     Washington, DC 20009
     Tel: (202) 350-4783
     Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
            sgold@kalielpllc.com


VANTAGE CREDIT: Can Compel Individual Arbitration of Henry's Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TWANNA HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. VANTAGE CREDIT UNION, et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 4:20-cv-01865-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen
R. Clark of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' motion to compel
individual arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff Henry purports to have uncovered an agreement between a
car dealership, EH LLC, doing business as Honda of Frontenac, and
an automobile financing company, Vantage Credit Union, to secretly
mark up interest rates.

On Dec. 5, 2013, Henry purchased a Dodge Challenger from Honda of
Frontenac.  In completing the purchase, Henry executed a number of
documents, including a Retail Buyers Order, a Retail Installment
Contract and Security Agreement, a Vehicle Service Contract, and a
GAP insurance enrollment.  Henry executed these documents with a
representative of Honda of Frontenac.

The Buyers Order identifies Henry as the "Purchaser," lists the
purchase price, and states that Henry "hereby agrees to purchase"
the automobile from Honda of Frontenac "under the terms and
conditions specified."  Henry signed the Buyers Order on Dec. 5,
2013.  The Buyers Order states in boldface, capital letters above
the signature: "THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION
PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES."  Henry again
signed the Buyers Order just below the arbitration clause.

Plaintiff Henry also executed the Retail Installment Contract and
Security Agreement as part of the December 5th purchase.  The
Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement does not contain
an arbitration clause, but does contain agreed terms and conditions
regarding financing for the purchase of the vehicle.

In December 2020, Henry filed a class action complaint against
Frontenac, Vantage, and individuals on Vantage's board of directors
-- Eric Acree, Jerry Eichholz, Dan Dolan, Mark Rudolph, Barbara
Evans-Cunningham, Daniel Isom, Toni Martin and William Solomon.
Henry alleges that Vantage and Honda of Frontenac entered into an
agreement that allowed the dealership to mark up the interest rate
on the car loan Vantage offered to Henry, "resulting in Henry
paying more over the life of the loan than she would have had she
been told the actual rate at which Vantage was willing to offer
financing."  Henry asserted a claim for violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Ann. Stat. Section 407.020,
against all the Defendants, and claims for negligence and unjust
enrichment against Vantage and the named members of its board of
directors.  Honda of Frontenac has been dismissed from the matter.

Vantage and the individual Defendants serving on Vantage's board of
directors filed a motion to compel individual arbitration of
Henry's claims.  With Henry having filed her opposition to the
motion, and the Defendants filing a reply, the motion is now ripe
for review.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Defendants move to compel Henry's claims to individual
arbitration.  Judge Clark first addresses whether a valid
arbitration exists between Henry and Vantage, before then
addressing whether the parties have delegated threshold questions
of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

The parties agree that Henry entered into a valid arbitration
agreement with Honda of Frontenac.  They also agree that Honda of
Frontenac assigned the Retail Installment Contract and Security
Agreement to Vantage.  However, Henry argues that no arbitration
agreement exists between her and Vantage.  She contends that only
the Retail Buyers Order contains an arbitration agreement and that
contract is between Henry and the dealership, not Vantage.  She
further notes that Honda of Frontenac assigned only the Retail
Installment Contract and Security Agreement to Vantage, an
agreement that does not contain an arbitration provision.  Thus,
Henry argues that because the dealership never assigned the
contract containing the arbitration agreement to Vantage, Vantage
lacks Honda of Frontenac's right to compel Henry to arbitration.

Judge Clark holds that even though Honda of Frontenac assigned only
the Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement to Vantage,
it also assigned the arbitration agreement to Vantage.  Stated
differently, Vantage assumed the Retail Installment Contract and
Security Agreement as Honda of Frontenac had it, meaning that
Vantage could compel Henry to arbitration just as the dealership
could.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes that a valid arbitration
agreement exists between Henry and Vantage.

The Judge next considers whether Henry's claims fall within the
scope of the arbitration.  However, Vantage argues that the Court
may not consider "whether Henry's claims fall within the scope of
the arbitration clause and whether the director Defendants may
enforce that clause," because those questions "are delegated to the
arbitrator."  Henry claims that she "challenges the delegation
clause" because "no agreement to arbitrate -- or delegate -- was
ever formed between Henry and Vantage."

The Judge finds that the arbitration clause at issue states that
"the arbitration will be conducted by, and under the
then-applicable rules of, the American Arbitration Association."
The arbitration agreement's explicit reference to the AAA rules
requires the Court to refer all jurisdictional and arbitrability
disputes to the arbitrator.  This includes the question of whether
the agreement governs Henry's claims.  Thus, the Court does not
have the power to determine whether this contract and arbitration
clause can govern Henry's claims; the arbitrator must do so.  In
sum, the parties delegated the questions of whether Henry's claims
fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and whether the
director Defendants may enforce that clause to the arbitrator and
thus the Court may not decide these questions.

Because a valid arbitration agreement exists between Henry and
Vantage and the parties delegated the questions of whether the
claims fall within the scope the agreement and whether the director
Defendants may enforce that clause to the arbitrator, the Judge
must compel arbitration.  The Defendants argue that the parties
must be compelled to individual, not class-wide arbitration, and
Henry offered no response on this specific issue.

As he explained, Judge Clark notes that the arbitration clause
expressly states "no claim, controversy or dispute may be joined in
an arbitration with a claim, controversy or dispute of any other
person, or resolved on a class-wide basis."  Accordingly, he
compels Henry, Vantage, and the director-Defendants to arbitration
on an individual, not class-wide, basis.

Stay of Proceedings

In the case, the entire controversy may not be decided by
arbitration because the arbitrator may decide that the contract and
arbitration clause do not apply to the dispute or that the director
defendants may not enforce the arbitration agreement.  If that
happens, and Judge Clark expresses no opinion on whether he will,
Henry may be prejudiced by a dismissal because the statute of
limitations may run in the meantime.  Thus, the Judge stays the
action pending arbitration, rather than dismissing it.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Clark grants the Defendants' motion to compel
individual arbitration of Henry's claims.  He stays the matter
pending arbitration between Henry and the Defendants.  Henry and
the Defendants must provide a joint status report regarding the
progress of arbitration proceedings no later than July 30, 2021,
and must also submit a notice updating the Court no later than 10
days following the conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

The Judge directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close the
mater.  The parties must continue to comply with all orders of the
Court, provide status updates to the Court, and notify the Court of
any development that may affect the stay of the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4dj896mr from Leagle.com.


VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Investing Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE)
resulting from allegations that Virgin Galactic may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Virgin Galactic securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2087.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 30, 2021, after trading hours, Virgin
Galactic stated in a Current Report on a Form 8-K that, following
its review of a recent statement issued by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 12, 2021, and consulting with its
advisors, it will restate its consolidated financial statements
included in its Annual Report on a Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due to the accounting
treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. that were outstanding at the time of Virgin Galactic's
business combination on October 25, 2019. On this news, Virgin
Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 9%, to close at
$20.14 per share on May 3, 2021, the next trading day.

Then on June 4, 2021, market analyst Kerrisdale Capital published a
report entitled "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (SPCE): Putting the
Zero in Zero-G[.]" The Kerrisdale report stated, among other
things, that "[a]fter going public in October 2019 by way of a
merger with a 'blank check' company, Virgin Galactic has seen its
share price and trading volume soar[,]" but that "Virgin Galactic's
$250,000+ commercial 'spaceflights' - if they ever actually happen,
after some 17 years of delays and disasters - will offer only the
palest imitations of these experiences." The report further stated
that "[t]he original sin goes back to SpaceShipOne, which was
jury-rigged to just barely win the X Prize, with no potential for
further scaling up to true orbital spaceflight[,]" and that "[i]n
the long run, this approach is a dead end - too expensive,
unappealing, and uncompetitive to garner sizable revenues - a fact
only masked, temporarily, by canny marketing."

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

Contact:

       Laurence Rosen, Esq.
       Phillip Kim, Esq.
       The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
       275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Tel: (212) 686-1060
       Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
       Fax: (212) 202-3827
       E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
               pkim@rosenlegal.com
               cases@rosenlegal.com
       Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Palma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volunteers Of America
Northern California And Northern Nevada, Inc., et al. The case is
styled as Amber Palma, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Volunteers of America Northern California and
Northern Nevada Inc., a California company, Case No.
34-2021-00301329-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
25, 2021).

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

Volunteers of America Northern California and Northern Nevada --
https://www.voa.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization founded in 1896
that provides affordable housing and other assistance services
primarily to low-income people throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          10045 SW 111th St.
          Miami, FL 33176-3462
          Phone: 305-439-7872
          Fax: 305-270-3203



WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Judgment & Awards in Magadia Suit Partly Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK MAGADIA, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WALMART INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-16184 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion:

    (i) vacating the district court's judgment and awards of
        damages on the Labor Code Section 226.7 claim, and
        remanding with instructions to further remand it to state
        court; and

   (ii) reversing the judgment and awards of damages on the Labor
        Code Section 226(a) claims, and remanding with
        instructions to enter judgment for Walmart.

Mr. Magadia worked on sales for Walmart for eight years.  After the
company let him go, Magadia filed a class action suit against
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Walmart, Inc., alleging three
violations of California Labor Code's wage-statement and meal-break
requirements.

First, Magadia alleged that Walmart didn't provide adequate pay
rate information on its wage statements.  Next, he claimed that
Walmart failed to furnish the pay-period dates with his last
paycheck.  Finally, he asserted that Walmart didn't pay adequate
compensation for missed meal breaks.

Magadia sought penalties for these claims under California's
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which authorizes an
aggrieved employee to recover penalties for Labor Code violations
on behalf of the government and other employees.

The district court at first certified classes corresponding to each
of Magadia's three claims.  After summary judgment and a bench
trial, the district court found that Magadia in fact suffered no
meal-break violation and decertified that class.  Even so, the
district court allowed Magadia to still seek PAGA penalties on that
claim based on violations incurred by other Walmart employees.  The
district court then ruled against Walmart on the three claims.

The district court then awarded Magadia $101,947,700 for the three
claims: $96 million award for the adjusted-overtime-rate claim ($48
million in statutory damages and another $48 million in PAGA
penalties); $5.8 million in PAGA penalties for the
final-wage-statement claim; and $70,000 in PAGA penalties for the
meal-break claim.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviews findings of fact for clear
error and conclusions of law de novo.  It starts by considering
whether Magadia has standing to bring a PAGA claim for the
meal-break violations.  Although the district court found that he
did not suffer a meal-break injury himself, Magadia insists he has
standing to pursue this claim because PAGA is a qui tam statute.
Of course, with no individualized harm, Magadia cannot establish
traditional Article III standing.

But qui tam actions are a "well-established exception" to the
traditional Article III analysis.  Qui tam is short for "qui tam
pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur," meaning he
"who pursues this action on our Lord the King's behalf as well as
his own," citing Vermont Agency, 529 U.S. at 768 n.1.  A qui tam
statute permits private plaintiffs, known as relators, "to sue in
the government's name for the violation of a public right."  A
non-injured relator has standing when the statute effected a
partial assignment of the Government's damages claim.

Though the California Supreme Court has categorized PAGA as "a type
of qui tam action," the Ninth Circuit must look beyond the mere
label attached to the statute and scrutinize the nature of the
claim itself.  It examines "historical practice" to determine
whether a harm "has traditionally been regarded as a basis for a
lawsuit."  It says a purported qui tam statute must hew closely to
the traditional scope of a qui tam action for an uninjured
plaintiff to maintain suit under Article III.  So long as PAGA
claims satisfy the traditional criteria for a qui tam action,
Magadia may pursue his meal-break claim.

Altogether, the Ninth Circuit opines that PAGA's features diverge
from Vermont Agency's assignment theory of qui tam injury, and they
depart from the traditional criteria of qui tam statutes.  As a
result, it holds that Magadia lacks standing to bring a PAGA claim
for Walmart's meal-break violations since he himself did not suffer
injury.  It remands Magadia's meal-break claim to the district
court with instructions to return it to state court.

Next, the Ninth Circuit considers whether Magadia has standing to
bring his two wage-statement claims under Labor Code Section
226(a).  That provision requires employers to accurately furnish
certain itemized information on its employees' wage statements.
Walmart disputes that a violation of Section 226(a) creates a
cognizable Article III injury in the case.

The Ninth Circuit holds that it does.  It says the hallmark of an
Article III injury is that it is concrete and particularized.  To
determine whether the violation of a statute constitutes a concrete
harm, the Ninth Circuit engages in a two-part inquiry.  It first
consider whether the statutory provisions at issue were established
to protect concrete interests (as opposed to purely procedural
rights).  If so, it then assesses whether the specific procedural
violations alleged in this case actually harm, or present a
material risk of harm to, such interests.

First, the Ninth Circuit believes Section 226(a) protects
employees' concrete interest in receiving accurate information
about their wages in their pay statements.  As a result, Walmart's
failure to disclose statutorily required information on Magadia's
wage documents, if true, violates a concrete interest.  Second,
Magadia sufficiently alleges that Walmart's Section  226(a)
violations -- depriving him of accurate itemized wage statements --
presented a "material risk of harm" to his "interest" in the
statutorily guaranteed information.

The Ninth Circuit therefore holds that Magadia has standing to
bring his two claims under Labor Code Section 226(a).  For the same
reason, it also concludes that other class members who can
establish Section 226(a) injuries have standing to collect
damages.

The Circuit Court turns, finally, to the merits of Magadia's two
claims under California's wage statement statute.  To recover
damages under the law, Magadia must prove that he "suffered injury
as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to
comply with the statute."  The district court determined that
Magadia proved that Walmart violated the statute.

The Circuit Court disagrees.  First, it concludes that the wage
statement law did not require Walmart to list the "rate" of the
MyShare overtime adjustment on employees' wage statements.  Because
Walmart must retroactively calculate the MyShare overtime
adjustment based on work from six prior periods, the Court does not
consider it an hourly rate "in effect" during the pay period for
purposes of Section 226(a)(9).  Walmart complied with the wage
statement law.  Second, the Circuit Court holds that Walmart's
Statements of Final Pay do not violate the wage statement statute.
By the plain meaning of the statute, Walmart had the option of
furnishing the required wage statement in this way and thus Walmart
complied with the law.

For the foregoing reasons, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Magadia
lacked standing to bring the meal-break claim because he did not
suffer injury himself.  As for the two wage-statement claims, it
holds that Magadia had standing but conclude that Walmart did not
breach California law.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacates the
district court's judgment and awards of damages on the Labor Code
Section 226.7 claim.  It remands with instructions to further
remand it to state court.  The Ninth Circuit also reverses the
judgment and awards of damages on the Labor Code Section 226(a)
claims.  It remands with instructions to enter judgment for
Walmart.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/64j32rjt from Leagle.com.

Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- (argued), Julian
W. Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Bradley J. Hamburger --
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- and Joseph Tartakovsky, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for
Defendants-Appellants.

Jonathan E. Taylor -- jon@guptawessler.com -- (argued), Deepak
Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gregory A. Beck --
greg@guptawessler.com -- and Daniel Wilf-Townsend --
daniel@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.;
Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Kwanporn Tulyathan , and
Max Gavron, Diversity Law Group PC, in Los Angeles, California;
Dennis S. Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Los
Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas R. Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae
Employers Group and California Employment Law Council.

Matthew B. Gunter, Assistant General Counsel, RCN Capital LLC,
South Windsor, Connecticut, for Amicus Curiae RCN Capital LLC.

Deanna M. Rice -- derice@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, in New York City; Steven P. Lehotsky and
Jonathan D. Urick, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington,
D.C.; Stephanie Martz, National Retail Federation, Washington,
D.C.; Deborah R. White, Retail Litigation Center Inc., in
Arlington, Virginia; for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America, National Retail Federation, and Retail
Litigation Center Inc.

Henry Hewitt -- henry.hewitt@stoel.com -- and Sairah Budhwani --
sbudhwani@rifkinlawoffice.com -- Legal Aid at Work, in San
Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Legal Aid at Work.


WHITE COMMUNICATIONS: Judgment for Shirley in Usher Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKIE ONEAL USHER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. SHIRLEY WHITE, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D077133 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division One, affirmed the judgment for Defendant Shirley White.

Plaintiffs Jackie Oneal Usher and Eric Leung, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, appeal the judgment
for Defendant Shirley.  The Plaintiffs in 2014 brought a putative
wage-and-hour class action lawsuit against Defendants White
Communications, LLC (White Communications or the company) and
DirecTV, LLC.  In early 2018, they amended their complaint to add
Shirley and her son Jeff White (Jeff), based on Labor Code section
558.1, which became effective on Jan. 1, 2016.

Under section 558.1, a "natural person who is an owner, director,
officer, or managing agent" of an employer may be personally liable
if that person, on behalf of the employer, "violates, or causes to
be violated" certain wage and hour laws as provided in the
statute.

The factual allegations in the operative complaint provided White
Communications hired Usher as a service technician in October 2012.
It alleged that the Plaintiffs were service technicians who
contracted with White Communications, but who worked exclusively
for DirecTV; that White Communications was indirectly controlled by
DirecTV; that White Communications was authorized to hire service
technicians to install DirecTV's satellite systems in customers'
homes and businesses according to DirecTV's specification; that
White Communications required the Plaintiffs sign an "Installation
Services Agreement" purportedly creating an independent contractor
relationship between defendants and plaintiffs; and that while
White Communications supervised the Plaintiffs' service
technicians, that supervision was subject to DirecTV's "strict
scrutiny."

The operative complaint further alleged DirecTV customers were led
to believe that the service technicians were employees of DirecTV,
as the technicians dressed in clothing with the DirecTV logo and
arrived for appointments in a vehicle bearing that logo; customers
called DirecTV for an appointment and once scheduled, White
Communications was responsible for dispatching a service technician
to that appointment; and the service technicians only installed and
repaired DirecTV satellite systems.

The operative complaint alleged the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiffs as independent contractors in order to force them to
routinely work seven days a week, in shifts that sometimes lasted
over 10 or 12, but no less than eight, hours; that the Defendants
monitored the Plaintiffs' schedules and workload through a handheld
device and software they provided; that on average, the Plaintiffs
worked about "55-60 hours," and sometimes as much as "70-80 hours"
a week; and that the Defendants never paid the Plaintiffs any
overtime wages.  Instead, the Defendants paid them by the "job,"
and the Plaintiffs typically earned about $250 to $275 a day.

The Plaintiffs also alleged White Communications also had no
employee manual and they were unable to take meal and rest breaks
because of DirecTV's "On Time Guarantee," which required service
technicians to arrive at an appointment on time or face a $50
charge or even suspension for violation of this policy.  Because of
the "On Time Guarantee" and the scheduling of appointments close in
time, service technicians who took meal and rest breaks risked
violating this policy.

Of particular significance to the issues on appeal, the class
allegations of the operative complaint defined the class as "all
current, former, or prospective service technicians or similar type
positions that are misclassified as independent contractors of
Defendants in the State of California who have not received
compensation for all time worked and all overtime worked in
violation of the California Labor Code and applicable wage orders
from Nov. 10, 2010 to the date of judgment."

The Plaintiffs also sought certification of seven subclasses for
various Labor Code violations, all of which were based on their
alleged misclassification as independent contractors; and alleged
common questions of fact or law predominated over questions
affecting individual class members including on the issue of
whether the "Defendants misclassified service technicians or
similar type job positions as independent contractors."

The Plaintiffs asserted 10 causes of action in their operative
complaint.  In each cause of action, they incorporated the above
factual and class allegations.  The Plaintiffs' causes of action
and their request for damages were therefore premised on being
misclassified as independent contractors, which in turn caused the
alleged Labor Code violations.

In February 2019, Shirley moved for summary judgment/summary
adjudication.  She argued she was not personally liable under
section 558.1 because she neither employed the Plaintiffs nor
"violated" or "caused to be violated," any provision of the Labor
Code.

The court granted summary judgment for Shirley, concluding as a
matter of law she was not liable under section 558.1 because it
found undisputed evidence that she did not participate in the
determination to classify the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors.  It therefore held Shirley did not "cause" any
violation of the enumerated sections of the Labor Code, as set
forth in section 558.1 and in the Plaintiffs' operative complaint.

The Court of Appeals explains that it interprets the words
"violates, or causes to be violated" in section 558.1 in their
ordinary meaning to impose liability on an "owner" such as Shirley
if, when acting on behalf of an employer, the "owner" has personal
involvement in the enumerated violations in section 558.1; or,
absent personal involvement, has sufficient participation in the
activities of the employer -- including, for example, over those
responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations -- such that
the "owner" may be deemed to have contributed to, and thus have
"caused" such violations.

It holds that the undisputed evidence in this case shows that
Shirley was not personally involved in the determination to
classify the Plaintiffs as independent contractors, which purported
misclassification forms the basis of their class and subclass
allegations and their 10 causes of action; and that she also lacked
sufficient participation in the operation and management of White
Communications to create a triable issue of material fact that she
"caused" the wage and hour violations.  The Court of Appeals
therefore independently concludes the order granting Shirley
summary judgment was proper.

In light of this decision, the Court of Appeals need not address
any other arguments raised by the parties, including Shirley's
argument that section 558.1 allegedly did not apply in the case
because the alleged violations of the enumerated provisions
occurred prior to the statute's Jan. 1, 2016 enactment.

The judgment is affirmed.  Shirley to recover her costs of appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mz3m9um from Leagle.com.

Niddrie Addams Fuller -- dniddrie@appealfirm.com -- and John S.
Addams -- jaddams@appealfirm.com; Hogue & Belong and Jeffrey L.
Hogue -- jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- and Tyler J. Belong, for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, John Morris -- jmmorris@higgslaw.com -- and
Rachel Moffitt Garrard -- rgarrard@higgslaw.com -- for Defendant
and Respondent.


WILD EARTH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wild Earth, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Wild Earth, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04980
(S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021).

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

Wild Earth -- https://wildearth.com/ -- is a technology startup
developing clean protein dog food and has been featured on Shark
Tank.[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


WILL HAYES: Parry Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wills Hayes
Associates LLC. The case is styled as John Parry, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wills Hayes
Associates LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00964 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2021).

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

Wills Hayes Associates LLC Services --
https://willshayesassociatesllc.com/ -- is a collection agency
dedicated to helping consumers and creditors bridge the gap without
the process of civil court.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $177K Reserve at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has $176,856 reserve at March 31,
2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
(the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was $227,922.
Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs. The
Corporation’s receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was $152,508 ($115,862 at March 31, 2021).

"In conjunction with developing the Asbestos Liability through
2052, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable
insurance recoveries for the Asbestos Liability. In developing the
estimate, the Corporation considered Nathan’s projection for
settlement or indemnity costs for the Asbestos Liability and
management’s projection of associated defense costs (based on the
current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of
additional factors. These additional factors included the
Settlement Agreements in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits,
policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment
points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage,
policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance
carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for the Asbestos
Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as
reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as
estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against
Howden arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with
the Corporation’s outside legal counsel on these insurance
matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized
insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation
with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the
several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing
potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for the
Asbestos Liability. Based upon all of the factors considered by the
Corporation, and considering the Corporation's analysis of publicly
available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various
insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance
recoveries for the Asbestos Liability and defense costs through
2052."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3v4k9Yd



ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com's Subsidiaries Faces Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xdrvdB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR's Hoke Subsidiary Faces Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. has reported that asbestos-related
product liability claims continue to be filed against two of its
subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which
the Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc. ("Hoke"), the stock of which it acquired in
1998, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January
2020 through our sale of the I&S business. However, the Company has
indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made
against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and our historical experience in
resolving these claims, the Company does not expect that these
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3gnNxUd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $15.0MM Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation, at March 31, 2021, has recorded a
liability for asbestos-related product liability claims and related
legal costs of $15.0 million, the cost of which is paid through a
wholly-owned captive insurance company, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, we are
also involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually
evaluating costs relating to our estimated asbestos-related
liability, we review, among other things, the incidence of past and
recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the
claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, our recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against us, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Because this liability is likely to extend over many years,
management believes that the potential additional costs for claims
will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the
Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
including related legal costs to range between $5,400,000 and
$9,700,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters
of continued claims for a period of 37 years from March 31, 2021.
The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability
that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles to be
$6,956,000. The Company has reflected this liability gross of
insurance recoveries of $8,052,000 as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2021. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced
by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing
broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program.
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of approximately $2,000,000 over the next 12 months.
Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many
years, management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition
of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.

"A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past and future
asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was finalized
during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of the
settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs prior to
retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense costs
subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by the
settlement. The reimbursement net of retro-premiums is
approximately 47% which resulted in a $1,830,000 increase to the
Company's asbestos liability during the year ended March 31, 2021.

"In addition, the insurance carriers are required to reimburse the
Company for past defense costs through the date of the settlement
amounting to $3,006,000. Of this amount, $2,842,000 has been paid
prior to March 31, 2021 with the remaining expected to be paid in
the next quarter. The reimbursement for past cost is recorded net
of a contingent legal fee of $1,500,000 which was paid in fiscal
2021. Further, the insurance carriers accept 100% coverage for
indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the
future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve
calculation as of March 31, 2021 and 2020. The Company has recorded
a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in Other assets
in the Balance Sheet at March 31, 2021 in the amount of $8,052,000,
which offsets its asbestos reserves."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/34ZTm4J


  


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Lawsuits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its drilling rigs,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The
manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already
ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in
these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages
asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to
estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this
time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3pCj7l7




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Faces $48MM Indemnification Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure which relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to
have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2021, there were 126 asserted
claims for non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up
to $31 million, and 47 asserted claims for malignant cases with
cumulative relief sought of up to $17 million. Based on Duke Energy
Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution
of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount
claimed.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$564 million at March 31, 2021, and $572 million at December 31,
2020. These reserves are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based
upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future
asbestos claims through 2040 and are recorded on an undiscounted
basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term
forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2040
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative
payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in 2008. Future
payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is $714 million in excess of the self-insured
retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $704 million
at March 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020. These amounts are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables
within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding
the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas
believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as
the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength
rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/350iIj7



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $181.6MM Loss Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., at March 31, 2021, has reported a net
asbestos loss reserves of $181.6 million, or 98.7%, of total net
A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company. Concurrently with the closing, we entered into a
retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater. Per the
retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re. As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of $140.3 million,
an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing date. Of
the $140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded, $100.5 million
were related to A&E business. The maximum liability retroceded
under the retrocession treaty will be $440.3 million, equal to the
retrocession payment plus $300.0 million. We will retain liability
for any amounts exceeding the maximum liability retroceded under
the retrocession treaty.

"On December 20, 2019, the retrocession treaty was amended and
included a partial commutation. As a result of this amendment and
partial commutation, gross A&E reserves and correspondingly
reinsurance receivable were reduced by $43.4 million. In addition,
the maximum liability permitted to be retroceded increased to
$450.3 million.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.1 years at March 31, 2021.
These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2TSaxmC




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging
illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products
and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
  
The Company states, "We cannot predict with certainty the outcome
of these lawsuits or whether we could become subject to any
similar, related or additional lawsuits in the future.  In
addition, because some of our products are used in systems that
handle toxic or hazardous substances, any failure or alleged
failure of our products in the future could result in litigation
against us.  For example, a claim could be made under various
regulations for the adverse consequences of environmental
contamination.  Any litigation brought against us, whether with or
without merit, could result in substantial costs to us as well as
divert the attention of our management, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3zbQEXO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Corp. Still Defends Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation is a defendant, along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's
tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have
accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or
advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because
settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed
to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will
have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the
non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However,
unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible
amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be
required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its
litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the
policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter)
have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus
do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits.
The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations.
As of March 31, 2021, we recorded $129 and $721 within other
accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively,
within our consolidated condensed balance sheet for estimated
future claims. An insurance receivable of $129 and $721 was
recorded within other current assets and other assets, net,
respectively, within our consolidated condensed balance sheet as of
March 31, 2021 for estimated insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3g6o2YD




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Has 678 New Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the three months ended
March 31, 2021 and 2020, has received approximately 678 and 596 new
asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Metropolitan Life Insurance said, "The Company is and has been a
defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty
to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/351H2AS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Natura &Co Defends 109 Cases at Mar. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon, on March 31, 2021, has
recorded 109 individual cases pending filed in U.S. courts,
alleging that certain talc products the Avon sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 6-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Avon's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. During the three months ended March 31, 2021, 27 new
cases were filed, and 82 cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise
resolved. The value of the settlements was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to the Avon's results of
operations for the three-month period ended March 31, 2021.
Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Avon's talc
products are reasonably anticipated.

"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and
will continue to do so. To date, the Avon has not proceeded to
trial in any case filed against it and there have been no findings
of liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide
trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of
cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very
large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the
outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we
are only able to make a specific estimate for a small number of
individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal
proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of
exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into
account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to
date. Any accruals currently recorded on the Avon’s balance sheet
with respect to these cases are not material. However, any adverse
outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could
be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we expense
as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though some
costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://bit.ly/34YQTr8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Defends 121 PI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is a co-defendant in approximately 121
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 222 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million
compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3g06pcS


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 51 Active Cases at April 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named in 51 individual lawsuits
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has accepted a tender
for a portion of the defense costs and liability from a retailer
for one additional matter, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Perrigo Co. states, "The Company has been named, together with
other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts
in California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey, Louisiana and
Illinois alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos.

"All but one of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products
that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. One of
the pending actions involves a current prescription product that
contains talc as an excipient. The Company has several defenses and
intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these
lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2021, 2022 and 2023,
with the earliest to begin in May 2021."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3cvYVfp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Faces Numerous PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., is a defendant in numerous cases related to its
pharmaceutical and other products wherein plaintiffs in these cases
seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged
personal injury and economic loss, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

"Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3iv4gr8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Products Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses. However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in 2021."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3isIPHe





ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Defends 215 Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc., as of March 31, 2021, has recorded an
approximately 215 asbestos-related cases for which the Company has
the obligation to defend and indemnify; however, this number tends
to fluctuate up and down over time, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The
claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related
to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson
Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Once
certain conditions have been met, Univar will have the ability to
pursue insurance coverage, if any, that may be available under
McKesson's historical insurance coverage to offset the impact of
any fees, settlements, or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay
because of its obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson.
Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been
dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment. While the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does
not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the
ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material
effect on its overall financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2SlyOky



                            *********

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 ***