/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210615.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 113

                            Headlines

1144 OD LLC: Dessero Sues Over Failure to Pay Commissions & OT
1650 BROADWAY: Court Enters Final Judgment in Ray Class Suit
23 NORTH PARK: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Hernandez Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Claims
3M COMPANY: Douglas Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Gossage Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Henderson Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McClellen Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Stanis Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Stikeleather Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components

AEROTEK SCIENTIFIC: Cox Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Costs
AIU ONLINE: Young Seeks Blind Consumers' Equal Access to Website
AMAZON.COM INC: Announces New Drug Testing Policy for Pot Amid Suit
ANAPLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sakkal Putative Class Suit Pending
APPLE INC: iOS Updates Damaged iPhones, Crittenden Suit Alleges

ARCH INSURANCE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Gordon Suit
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Ban Class Action Payout Expected to Begin

BALTIMORE DIAMOND: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOSCA RODRIGUEZ: Class Action Over Cryptocurrency Scam Ongoing
BOOKS INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRINK'S: Sanchez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Enters Discovery Order in Stiner Class Suit

CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Cutchin Sues Over Toilet Technicians' Unpaid OT
CANOPY GROWTH: Cannabis Related Putative Class Suit Underway
CANOPY GROWTH: Disclosure Related Putative Class Suit Dismissed
CD PROJEKT: Shareholder Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Ongoing
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval

CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Class Action Over Chronic Understaffing
CJJS LLC: McColley Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
COINBASE: Sued for Locking Out Consumers from Crypto-accounts

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ontario Trust Funds Granted Lead Roles in Palm
CROWN RESORTS: Faces AUSTRAC Probe Amid Class Action Lawsuit
DIAGEO NA: Tedeschi Files Mislabeling Suit v. Rum Product
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Winning Bets
ELITE 1 FINANCIAL: Floyd Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California

EML PAYMENTS: Shine Lawyers Mulls Class Action Over Subsidiary Firm
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Rawlins Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
FCA US: Court Terminates Initial Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Tossed in Haines Torts Suit

FIFTY WEST: Faces Morse Suit Over Tip Pooling & Unpaid Wages
FIRST CHINESE: Court Recertifies Remand Order in Guzman Class Suit
FLO HEALTH: Kiss Sues Over Users' Disclosed Intimate Health Data
FRONTIER MGMT: First Amended Wright Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

GOLDEN CITY: Faces Pu FLSA Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing Challenges Over Use of Mandatory Arbitration
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to End Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
GRUBHUB INC: Overcharges Food Establishments, Micheli & Shel Says
HEALTH PLAN: Hartley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. in Forsyth Granted
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
HF HOLDINGS: Court Allows Hancock to Serve Discovery Demands
HL WELDING: Court Allows Filing of First Amended Yanez Complaint
IFM INVESTORS: Named in Colonial Pipeline Class Action Lawsuit

ILLINOIS: Exelon Lobbyist Files Class Suit on Behalf of Lawmakers
INDEPENDENT PET: Robinson Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
ISLA VISTA PARKS: Feldt Files Suit in C.D. California
JACK PARKER: Court Certifies Class and Subclass in Thome Suit
JOHNNY'S TAVERN: Faces Kelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio

JOHNSON CONTROL: PFAS Contamination Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
KELLER DEVELOPMENT: Maurer Sues Over Non-Compliance of ADA
KINGDOM TRUST: McNally Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Putative Class Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Petition for Allowance of Appeal in Gennock Pending

LIL DADDY: Griffin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
LM GENERAL: Hinds-Thomas Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Purported Securities Class Suit Pending
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Proposed Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
LUMINEX CORPORATION: Finger Sues Over Misleading Merger Statement

MAD AT S.A.D.: Brothers Slam Alcohol Content in Beverage
MAGNACHIP SEMICON: Jones Files Suit Over Wise Road Merger
MANHATTAN AND BRONX: Romero FLSA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Mingo County Commission Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
MEDINA MANAGEMENT: Viar Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages

MEDNAX SERVICES: Customer Data Breach Litigation Moved to S.D. Fla.
MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Rucker Hits Tip Sharing, Seeks Min. Wage
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kong Slams Non-disclosure of Poor Financial Status
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vannest WVCCPA Suit Goes to N.D. West Virginia
NCINO INC: Putative Class Action in North Carolina Ongoing

NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Amend Pirone's Complaint
NEW YORK: Denies Tuition Refunds After Campus Closure, Garcia Says
NEW YORK: Fails to Properly Pay Home Care Workers, Franck Claims
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NUTANIX INC: California Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway

OLAM SPICES: Hearing on Prelim. Approval of Beltran Deal Vacated
OREGON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Parkerson v. ODOC Suit
PAPA SOUTH: Delivery Drivers Seek Settlement Class Certification
PEREG NATURAL: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHYTON TALENT: Klein Sues Over QA Analysts' Unpaid OT, Retaliation

PLAZA MOTORS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRA HEALTH SCIENCES: Murphy Files Suit Over ICON Merger Deal
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
PROMPT NURSING: Bid to Decertify Class in Paguirigan Suit Denied
PROSUPPS USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Corporan Sues Over Job Discrimination
RENOVATION BRANDS: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Jauregui Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

ROJE-PT ST LUCIE: Kingery Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ROMEO POWER: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Filing
RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Johnson Sues Over Retirement Plan's Losses
SALESFORCE.COM: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 14
SANDERS CANDY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Crocitto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SIMS GROUP: Parties Seek to Continue July 21 Class Cert. Bid Filing
SKILLZ INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in California Underway
SOLARWINDS INC: Thoma Bravo, Silver Lake Added in Class Action

ST. CATHERINE: Improperly Pays Hospital Staff, Felix Suit Claims
STEAK N SHAKE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wilmoth Suit Claims
STORED VALUE: Court Certifies Oregon Class in Brown Suit
STORYVILLE COFFEE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TAK COMMUNICATIONS: McKee Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee

TEXAS: Foster Care System Target of Decade-Old Class-Action
TILRAY INC: Delaware Court Refuses to Dismiss Reorganization Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Soy Wiring Class Action Lawsuit Partly Dismissed
TREATS UNLEASHED: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUECAR INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

U.S. RENAL: Bruno Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Court Dismisses Foster Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces LGBTQ Discrimination-Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Jacob et al., Loses Class Certification Bid
URBAN ALCHEMY: Belle Slams Retaliation, Workplace Discrimination

VIVINT INC: Bids for Partial Summary Judgment in Cunningham Denied
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Coolant Pump Class Action Lawsuit Settled
WAGERS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAKE FOREST: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Garnick Alleges
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Modify Briefing Schedule in Stoff Suit Denied

WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Gibson FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WESTERN NUT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WYZE LABS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZOOM VIDEO: Agreement Reached in User Privacy Related Suit

                            *********

1144 OD LLC: Dessero Sues Over Failure to Pay Commissions & OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEREK ROBERT DESSERO, and similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. 1144 OD LLC d/b/a VICTOR HOTEL, a Florida corporation,
MIAMI SUN MANAGEMENT LLC, and JORDACHE ENTERPRISES INC., a New York
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22098-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 4, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began working for Victor Hotel as a Group Sales
Manager from in or about March 2017 thereafter he accepted the
terms of the Defendants' offer letter signed by the Director of
Finance for Jordache until he was terminated on March 21, 2020. The
offer letter also stated that he has to be an employee of Miami
Sun.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay his $7,973
in commissions before he was terminated as well as his overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate. He claims that he has
worked approximately 45 hours of overtime in 2018, approximately 66
hours of overtime in 2019, and approximately 20 hours of overtime
in 2020. Due to their failure to pay the Plaintiff the agreed upon
commissions, the Defendants have breached their contract with the
Plaintiff.

As a result of the alleged conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages. Thus, he brings this complaint to recover the unpaid
commissions and other damages for himself and other similarly
situated employees.

1144 OD LLC d/b/a Victor Hotel has been in the business of
hospitality selling hotel rooms, meeting space and similar to
customers. Victor Hotel is owned and managed by Jordache
Enterprises Inc. together with Miami Sun Management LLC. The
Corporate Defendants can be considered a "single entity" within the
meaning of the FLSA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary A. Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1440
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305) 375-9510
          Fax: (305) 375-9511


1650 BROADWAY: Court Enters Final Judgment in Ray Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters Final Judgment in the case,
KEVIN RAY, BRIAN ESPOSITO, SAMUEL LADD and JENNA MILLER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1650
BROADWAY ASSOCIATES INC. d/b/a ELLEN'S STARDUST DINER, and KENNETH
STURM, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-09858
(VSB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Broderick held a fairness hearing related to the class action
and collective action in the captioned case on Feb. 23, 2021.
During that hearing after reviewing the proposed settlement under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and the factors set
forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d
Cir. 1974), and for the reasons the Judge previously stated in his
September 29, 2020 Opinion & Order, in which he preliminarily: 1)
granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Final Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Releases ("Settlement Agreement"); 2)
conditionally certified the proposed classes; 3) appointed the
named plaintiffs as class representatives; 4) appointed Eisner &
Dictor, P.C. and Roger J. Bernstein as class counsel; 5) approved
the proposed Notice of Class and Collective Action Settlement; 6)
appointed Rust Consulting as the settlement claims administrator;
and 7) scheduled a fairness hearing. He granted final approval of
the Settlement Agreement and the settlement class.

However, although the class counsel contended that it spent
significant effort to achieve the settlement, and asserted that
they had worked approximately 753.8 hours of attorney, paralegal
and staff time over the last four years working on the case for an
aggregate lodestar of approximately $290,880, the class counsel
failed to provide any contemporaneous time records.  During the
fairness hearing, Judge Broderick pointed out that an application
for attorneys' fees must be supported by 'contemporaneous time
records' that 'specify, for each attorney, the date, the hours
expended, and the nature of the work done.  Therefore, he requested
that the counsel provides contemporaneous time records in support
of the request for attorneys' fees.  On Feb. 26, 2021, the class
counsel provided those records.

Judge Broderick holds that attorneys' fees in the amount of
$268,052.50 are fair and reasonable.  As an initial matter, he
deducts from the Plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees work related
to actions before the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") and
the New York State Department of Labor ("NYS-DOL").

The Judge then finds that the fees for the work done litigating
only the FLSA claims before him -- $268,052.50 -- are fair and
reasonable.  First, as demonstrated by the Plaintiffs' counsel's
detailed time records, the counsel has spent significant time and
resources to settle the matter since 2016.  The counsel engaged in
extensive investigation of the Plaintiff's claim.  Second, the
legal issues involved in the action are complex and difficult to
prove.  Third, the counsel undertook the litigation on a
contingent-fee basis and faced the possibility of recovering no
fees given the complexity of the claims and the Defendants'
counterclaims.  Lastly, public policy considerations weigh in favor
of granting the Plaintiff's counsel's requested fee award.  The
willingness of experienced counsel to take on private lawsuits
helps further the goal of the FLSA and NYLL to protect the wages of
workers. Adequate compensation for attorneys who protect those
rights by taking on such litigation furthers the remedial purpose
of these statutes.

For these reasons, Judge Broderick certified the proposed Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 Class Action and FLSA Collective Action for purposes of
implementing the parties Settlement Agreement.  The Class Members
are the 251 present and former servers employed by and identified
by the Defendants.

All claims by the Class Representatives in the Amended Complaint,
all Counterclaims asserted by the Defendants in their Answer and
the Counterclaims, and all claims of the Class Members in the
Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs' counsel are awarded Attorneys' Fees in the amount
of $268,052.50 and reimbursement of Costs in the amount of
$5,567.69, to be paid in two equal installments from the $1,450,000
Settlement Fund.

The Defendants will pay the $1.45 million Settlement Fund to the
Settlement Claims Administrator in a First Installment of $725,000
and a Second Installment of $725,000.  The First Installment will
be delivered to the Settlement Claims Administrator 30 days after
the date of the Final Judgment, unless a Notice of Appeal has been
filed, and the Second Installment will be delivered to the
Settlement Claims Administrator six months after the date for
delivery of the First Installment.

From the First Installment, the Settlement Claims Administrator
will pay one half of the Service Awards of $5,000 to each Class
Representative as described in the Settlement Agreement and one
half of the Attorneys' Fees and Costs to the Plaintiffs' counsel;
the remaining amount of the First Installment will constitute the
first half of the Net Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement
Agreement. From the first half of the Net Settlement Fund, the
Settlement Claims Administrator will prepare and distribute
Settlement Checks to the Class Members in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

From the Second Installment, the Settlement Claims Administrator
will pay one half of the Service Awards of $5,000 to each Class
Representative as described in the Settlement Agreement and one
half of the Attorneys Fees and Costs to Plaintiffs' counsel, less
the amount due to the Settlement Claims Administrator for its
services.  The remaining amount of the Second Installment will
constitute the second half of the Net Settlement Fund as defined in
the Settlement Agreement. From the second half of the Net
Settlement Fund, the Settlement Claims Administrator will prepare
and distribute Settlement Checks to the Class Members in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Claims Administrator will provide verification to
the Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel that it has
distributed the Settlement Checks, will retain copies of all of the
e-cashed Settlement Checks with releases, and at appropriate times
will provide Defendants' Counsel with the original or copies of the
cashed Settlement Checks with releases.

The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of overseeing
compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2vsv9mfv from Leagle.com.


23 NORTH PARK: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Hernandez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HERNANDEZ and DAVID NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 23 NORTH PARK AVENUE PUB
INC., d/b/a KASEY'S KITCHEN & COCKTAILS, 44 TAP HOUSE INC., d/b/a
CRAFT KITCHEN & TAPHOUSE, ANTHONY GERACI, THOMAS MCNICHOLAS, DANIEL
QUINN, MANNASE SUAZO, and THOMAS GARRETT, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03214 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to comply with notice and
recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Nunez were employed by the Defendants as a
kitchen cook and dishwasher from July 8, 2019 to December 8, 2020,
and as a bartender and barback from October 22, 2014 through
November 21, 2020, respectively.

23 North Park Avenue Pub Inc., doing business as Kasey's Kitchen &
Cocktails, is a restaurant and bar owner and operator, with its
principal place of business located at 23 North Park Avenue,
Rockville Centre, New York.

44 Tap House Inc., doing business as Craft Kitchen & Taphouse, is a
restaurant and bar owner and operator, with its principal place of
business located at 44 Stauderman Avenue, Lynbrook, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Danielle Petretta, Esq.
         Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
         Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
         BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
         910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 248-5550
         Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Miller Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MICHAEL MILLER, 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-01663-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 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:                

         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: Douglas Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DOUGLAS, 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-01669-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

3M COMPANY: Gossage Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN L. GOSSAGE, 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-01660-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 testicular 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:                

         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: Henderson Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY CAM HENDERSON, 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-01661-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 kidney 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:                

         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: McClellen Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS ELDON MCCLELLEN, 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-01662-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular 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: Stanis Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN STANIS, 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-01664-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 for 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
Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, 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:                

         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: Stikeleather Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE STIKELEATHER, 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-01665-RMG
(D.S.C., June 4, 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 says.

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

AEROTEK SCIENTIFIC: Cox Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANINA COX, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEROTEK SCIENTIFIC, LLC, a Maryland Limited
Liability Company, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV20824 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June 4, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendants seeking civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for the Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, asserts that the Defendants have failed to provide her
and other non-exempt employees with all legally-compliant meal
periods, to authorize and permit them to take any duty-free
10-minute rest periods, and to pay them an additional hour of
premium pay at their respective regular rates of pay for each
workday in which a meal and rest period violations occurred. In
addition, the Defendants required them to use their personal
vehicles to travel to complete their routes as well their personal
mobile phones to receive assignments, to communicate with
supervisors, and to navigate to the locations along their route,
but did not fully reimbursed them for all non-commute mileage
expenses and for a reasonable portion of their cellular phone
expenses. Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
payroll records, to provide accurate wage statements, and to pay
all final wages of their employees upon their respective
separations from employment, the Plaintiff adds.

Subsequently on March 30, 2021, the Plaintiff notified the
Defendant via certified mail and the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) via electronic submission regarding the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

Aerotek Scientific, LLC provides staffing services to the
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare industries throughout
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com

AIU ONLINE: Young Seeks Blind Consumers' Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIU ONLINE, LLC, and AMERICAN
INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05033-RA (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants 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,
https://www.aiuniv.edu/, 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.

AIU Online, LLC, is a company that operates the American
Intercontinental University (AIU) online college with its principal
address located at 231 N. Martingale Road, Schaumburg, Illinois.

American Intercontinental University, Inc. is a for-profit
university with its principal address located at 231 N Martingale
Road, Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
         Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
         Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
         GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
         150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 228-9795
         Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
         E-mail: Michael@gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@gottlieb.legal

AMAZON.COM INC: Announces New Drug Testing Policy for Pot Amid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Vaughn, writing for Dallas Observer, reports that Amazon, the
second-largest employer in the country, now supports legalizing
weed nationwide and says most job applicants will no longer be drug
tested for cannabis. Certain employees regulated by the Department
of Transportation, like delivery drivers, will still be tested.

The company said marijuana use will now be treated the same as
alcohol use.

"In the past, like many employers, we've disqualified people from
working at Amazon if they tested positive for marijuana use," Dave
Clark, the company's retail chief, wrote in a blog post. "However,
given where state laws are moving across the U.S., we've changed
course."

While Amazon won't be testing these applicants for weed, they'll
continue impairment checks and test for all drugs and alcohol after
any incident.

The company is a little late to the game on this considering weed
has been legal in Washington, where Amazon is headquartered, since
2012. Nevertheless, it will be a big change for job seekers in
Texas who consume marijuana or legal cannabis products like delta-8
and delta-10 THC, which can still show up on a drug test.

Amazon has been pumping jobs into the Dallas market. Most recently,
the company announced it would hire 2,800 people in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area for the summer shopping season, according to The Dallas
Morning News. Last year, Amazon nearly doubled its Texas workforce,
raising it to more than 72,000 employees.

The recent change in its policy is part of Amazon's goal of being
"Earth's best employer" in the wake of labor issues and a wave of
efforts to unionize.

Just a few months ago, Amazon was sued by an applicant in
New York after they were denied a job because they failed a drug
test for weed, according to the New York Daily News. Michael Thomas
was offered a job paying over $17 an hour at Amazon's Staten Island
warehouse in November last year. But the company revoked their
offer after THC showed up in Thomas' system.

It's kind of a special case because New York City's human rights
law prohibits employers from drug testing applicants for marijuana
except for certain positions, such as one that requires operating
heavy machinery. Thomas wasn't applying for such a position. The
suit was filed as a possible class action and notes that more than
100 individuals were denied jobs at Amazon for the same reason as
Thomas.

Nevada has a similar law barring employers from considering
pre-employment marijuana tests, but Texas doesn't. Still, there's
next to no restrictions on the right of private employers to adopt
drug and alcohol testing policies for their workers under state or
federal law, according to the Texas Workforce Commission.

Amazon's Clark also announced that their policy team would be
"actively supporting" a bill that would federally legalize
marijuana.

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act
of 2021 was reintroduced on May 28 after dying in the Senate last
year. If passed, marijuana would be removed from the list of
controlled substances. The bill would also send investments to
communities disproportionately affected by the "drug war."

"We hope that other employers will join us, and that policymakers
will act swiftly to pass this law," Clark said.

Amazon's move sent cannabis stocks for companies such as Sundial
Growers and Tilray up an additional 12-13%, according to Nasdaq.
Some are speculating the recent moves indicate the company wants in
on the cannabis business.

"If [the MORE Act] passes, will Amazon start selling weed?" Bruce
Barcott, a columnist for the cannabis site Leafly, wrote. "Of
course Amazon will start selling weed." [GN]

ANAPLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sakkal Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anaplan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative securities class action suit entitled, Sakkal
v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., is pending.

On August 24, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al., 3:20-cv-05959, against the
Company and certain of the Company's executive officers.

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on November 12, 2020, and on
January 6, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned Sakkal v. Anaplan, Inc., et al.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Anaplan, Inc.
securities between November 21, 2019, and February 26, 2020,
inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
the Company's prior public filings regarding the business,
operations and prospects of the Company.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 8, 2021, and the plaintiff filed opposition to the motion on
May 7, 2021 .

Anaplan said, "At this point, no discovery has occurred in this
case. The case is still in the preliminary stages, and it is not
possible for the Company to quantify the extent of potential
liability to the defendants, if any. The Company believes that the
lawsuit lacks merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of or is not able to
reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss from the
above described matter."

Anaplan, Inc. is pioneering the category of Connected Planning. The
company's platform enables organizations to make better decisions
and to plan and execute their ongoing digital transformation to
compete in today's digital economy. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


APPLE INC: iOS Updates Damaged iPhones, Crittenden Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRUW CRITTENDEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-04322 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for trespass to chattels and violations of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Computer Data Access
and Fraud Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the damage caused by the Defendant's software
updates on the iPhones of the Plaintiff and Class members. The
software updates at issue are iOS 14.5, 14.5.1, and 14.6, which
have significantly damaged iPhones, including iPhone 11, iPhone 12,
iPhone 12 Pro, and iPhone 12 Pro Max. The updates have caused their
processing speeds to decrease dramatically, and their battery to
drain faster. The Plaintiff and Class members never authorized such
access and damage to their iPhones, the suit alleges.

Apple Inc. is a technology company, headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
         E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

                - and –

         Daniel Bryson, Esq.
         Adam Edwards, Esq.
         Rachel Soffin, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
                 aedwards@milberg.com
                 rsoffin@milberg.com com

                - and –

         Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
         Jennifer Kraus Czeisler, Esq.
         Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300
         E-mail: arado@milberg.com
                 jczeisler@milberg.com
                 byagman@milberg.com

ARCH INSURANCE: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Gordon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY GORDON, et al. v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 21-1911 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The case is a putative class action filed on behalf of individuals,
who cancelled travel due to the coronavirus pandemic and whose
travel insurance claims were denied by the Defendant.  The
Defendant has moved to dismiss.

Plaintiff Burnett is a resident of Texas. He purchased travel from
Dallas, Texas, to Paris, France, for a tour from France to the
Netherlands.  The tour was scheduled for March 18, 2020, until
March 31, 2020.  The Plaintiff purchased a travel insurance policy
underwritten by the Defendant.

On March 7, 2020, the Plaintiff cancelled his trip due to the
coronavirus pandemic.  He was refunded for some, but not all, of
the price of his trip by the tour company.  On March 12, 2020, the
Plaintiff submitted a claim to the Defendant and the claim was
denied on April 9, 2020.

Discussion

a. The Burnett Breach of Contract Claim

The Plaintiff's insurance policy guarantees reimbursement "up to
the Maximum Benefit Amount" when the purchaser cancels the trip
"prior to departure for a covered Unforeseen reason."  The policy
enumerates covered reasons for cancellation, including as pertinent
here, "being quarantined."  The term "quarantine" is not defined in
the policy.  The Plaintiff argues that he was quarantined and that
he, therefore, should have been reimbursed under the terms of the
policy.  The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff was not
"quarantined" according to the common meaning of that word, and
that denial of the claim was proper.

Judge McHugh holds that it would be premature to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim based on the Defendant's proffered definition.
Indeed, even though the meaning of the word "quarantine" is a legal
question, ascertaining when government orders were instituted by
state and national government in the United States and in Europe,
and the extent to which they restricted individual movement, is a
factual inquiry that will shed light on the question.  Accordingly,
the Defendant's motion is denied as to Plaintiff Burnett's breach
of contract claim.

b. The Declaratory Judgment Claim

The Plaintiff additionally seeks declaratory judgment regarding the
meaning of "being quarantined" within the Defendant's insurance
policy.  The Defendant argues that the claim for declaratory relief
is duplicative of the Plaintiff's contract claims and should be
dismissed.

As Judge McHugh has previously held, dismissing declaratory
judgment claims prematurely can unfairly eliminate the possibility
of class-wide relief, rendering speculation about duplicative
relief inappropriate at the inception of a case.  The same is true
in the case, and he will therefore not dismiss this claim.

c. The Gordon Breach of Contract Claim

Plaintiffs Cindy and Jeffrey Gordon are residents of Pennsylvania.
They purchased travel from Philadelphia to Barcelona, Spain, for a
tour from Spain to Italy.  The trip was scheduled for July 16,
2020, until July 26, 2020.  The Gordons also purchased an
Individual Travel Protection Policy.  Portions of this policy came
directly from the cruise company, and other portions were
underwritten by the Defendant.  Sometime before April 1, 2020, the
Plaintiffs cancelled their trip due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  On
April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to the Defendant,
which was denied.

The Gordon Plaintiffs concede that the "Trip Cancellation" portion
of their contract was not underwritten by the Defendant, and thus
consent to dismissal of that portion of their Complaint.  As to the
remainder of the Plaintiff's claim under the terms of the contract,
Judge McHugh holds that the Defendant is entitled to dismissal as
well.  It underwrote the portion of the policy covering "Trip
Interruption," "Trip Delay," and other events that could only take
place during the trip itself.  The policy is explicit in that
regard.  Because the Plaintiffs never began their trip, they have
not alleged any facts that would give rise to a claim under the
literal terms of the contract.  Dismissal is therefore warranted.

d. The Gordon Unjust Enrichment Claim

Separate from their claim under the terms of the contract, the
Gordon Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to reimbursement of
a portion of their premiums under the theory of unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs' policy was automatically terminated when they
cancelled their trip.

The Defendant argues that under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiffs
cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim where the relationship is
controlled by contract.  The Plaintiffs argue that unjust
enrichment is properly pleaded as an alternative theory of
liability, but additionally argue that where a premium was not
earned by exposure to any risk, there is a lack of consideration
calling the validity of the contract into question, creating a
pathway to equitable relief.

Judge McHugh holds that even where a plaintiff has averred a
contract, it is possible that a plaintiff can "also pursue a claim
for unjust enrichment as an alternative theory of liability."  The
same is true in the instant case.  Dismissal of this claim would be
premature at this early stage and without fuller development of the
record.

Conclusion

Judge McHugh is persuaded that development of the record is
necessary to address the issues raised by the case.  Except for the
Gordon Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, the Defendant's motion
is denied.  An appropriate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48mmsuyd from Leagle.com.


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 6 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

3D Systems Corporation (NYSE:DDD)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT DDD:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/3d-systems-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=16598&from=1

Class Period: May 6, 2020 - March 1, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D
Systems lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting;
and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT ARRY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/array-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16598&from=1

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased ARRY: (a)
between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021, inclusive and (b)
pursuant, or traceable, or both, to: (i) the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2020
initial public offering; or (ii) the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2020
offering; or (iii) any combination of the initial public offering,
December 2020 offering, or March 2021 offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially
misleading picture of the Company's business and prospects that did
not reflect rising steel and freight costs. After the October 2020
initial public offering, the December 2020 offering and the March
2021 offering, and subsequent to the class period, Array disclosed
that it was experiencing increases in steel prices and substantial
increases in the cost of both ocean and truck freight that in turn
were having a material impact on its margins for the foreseeable
future. This caused Array to miss profit expectations and withdraw
its full-year outlook. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, shareholders have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:SPCE)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SPCE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16598&from=1

Class Period: October 26, 2019 - April 30, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
for accounting purposes, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s
("SCH") warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather
than equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for
SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the business
combination; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.


Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]

ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) f/k/a
Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MWK) between December 1, 2020
through May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important July 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

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

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

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

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

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

ATLANTIC RECOVERY: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sabrina Veney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Buyers Holdings, LLC, John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00840-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2021).

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

Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC --
https://www.atlanticrecoverysolutions.com/ -- is a nationally
licensed, insured, bonded debt recovery agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Phone: (215) 326-9179
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Live Cattle Ban Class Action Payout Expected to Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that ten years ago,
Australia's beef industry was rocked by the earth-shattering
decision of the then Labor Government to lock hundreds of thousands
of northern cattle out of the Indonesian market.

In hindsight, that decision was clearly a knee-jerk reaction. It
has been proven illegal and will cost future federal governments
hundreds of millions in compensation. It is considered one of the
darkest days in the industry's history.

At the time, cattle people were devastated but the full extent of
the total fall-out -- the lost businesses, communities, livelihoods
and even lives -- could never have been imagined on that first
day.

For senior agricultural journalist Andrew Marshall, who penned the
first articles about the ban for mastheads like The Land and
Queensland Country Life, it was almost unbelievable.

The Gillard Government's decision to ban the live cattle trade to
Indonesia on the back of an ABC Four Corners report that showed
footage of Australian cattle being slaughtered inhumanely in
Indonesian abattoirs was not expected, he said.

Overnight, every cattle owner in Australia became a forced seller,
Mr Marshall's coverage said.

Shares in big beef producer AACo were put into a voluntary trading
halt on the Australian Securities Exchange for 48 hours while the
company assessed the ban's implications.

Huge numbers of cattle were left stranded in quarantine at northern
ports across three states.

"Malcolm Jackman, from Elders -- who had thousands of head ready to
ship out -- spoke about leaving those cattle on the front lawn of
Parliament House," Mr Marshall said.

"It was one of the most speculator quotes I've heard."

Mr Marshall said most in the industry had been aware of the story
and had tuned into Four Corners.

"As we watched, we were horrified. It was the sort of thing unheard
of in Australia," he said.

"But there was no expectation or inclination that it would become a
weapon used by the animal rights lobby to get the trade banned.

"They whipped up a frenzy pretty quickly. And the ABC pushed it as
an agenda news story.

"People in our industry were very worried about how out of control
it became so quickly and it was unknown territory -- how to respond
without defending such horror footage and how to stop an industry
from being decimated.

"Backbenchers were bombarded with petitions. They felt their
metropolitan constituents were about to toss them out."

Still, when the announcement came from then agriculture minister
Joe Ludwig, it was a shock.

Because it was unwarranted and unnecessary, there was utter
disbelief in the bush.

Mr Marshall said it was a decision that had a similar reverberating
impact across agriculture as when the then Primary Industries
Minister John Kerin pulled the floor price out of the wool market
in the early 1900s.

Cattle market reporters watched as the market at saleyards right
down to Gunnedah crash.

"It was a domino effect," Mr Marshall said.

"What we understood, that other media did not, was there was a
whole supply chain involved. Entire communities were devastated.
Equity in properties disappeared. Livelihoods were gone."

United stand
The ban lasted under two months but it was years before most
live-ex cattle suppliers were anywhere near back on their feet.

In 2014, the Northern Territory-based Brett Cattle Co led a class
action against Ludwig and the department claiming it had lost the
opportunity to sell about 2,776 head of cattle during the ban, and
suffered losses totalling about $2.5m.

On many occasions, those leading that court action are believed to
have tried to negotiate, with different governments, a settlement
out of court.

Governments held out, obviously believing it to be an unwinnable
case for cattle people.

Last year, ironically in June, the Federal Court found in favour of
the Brett Family and class action participants. It had taken six
years of legal proceedings, including 18 months of deliberation. A
payout in the vicinity of $800m is now expected to begin to roll
out in the next few years.

Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association chief executive officer
Will Evans said the anniversary would serve as a reminder of a
knee-jerk decision that was capricious and unreasonable.

"The remarkable achievement is not only the victory in the class
action against the Government," he said.

"It's the battle that truly shocks me. I cannot imagine how many
people said the class action was a waste of time and money.

"But the Territory's beef industry has always been about fighting.
Fighting the heat. Fighting the water, or lack of it. Fighting
weeds and dogs and buffalo and Government bureaucracy and sometimes
Government itself.

"The success of 2011 stems from the simple fact that when the
industry was attacked, the industry stood together and was held
together by the strength of remarkable people.

"Tonight, I'll be raising a glass to those who fronted the cameras,
to those who stood behind them and to those who we've lost over the
last 10 years who didn't get to see the end of the battle." [GN]

BALTIMORE DIAMOND: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baltimore Diamond
Exchange, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Baltimore
Diamond Exchange, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05120 (S.D.N.Y., June 9,
2021).

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

Baltimore Diamond Exchange USA --
https://www.diamondexchangeusa.com/contact-us/baltimore/ -- is
proud to be one of the premier custom jewelers and diamond buyers
and sellers in the Washington, DC area.[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


BIOSCA RODRIGUEZ: Class Action Over Cryptocurrency Scam Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investing.com reports that the spate of cryptocurrency scams has
exponentially increased in leaps and bounds as cryptos continue to
gain popularity. From being virtually unheard of in the early days
of the tech, cryptocurrency scams have transmogrified into a major
thorn for investors in the ecosystem. The persistent occurrence of
these scams has led to instances where values have been wiped off
and events have triggered the bankruptcy of exchanges and
investment firms around the world.

Spain in particular has been plagued by incidences of
crypto-related scams as negative actors seek to eke out illegal
gains from the pockets of unsuspecting investors. The courts in the
Basque nation are currently handling a slew of cryptocurrency scam
cases as occurrences have skyrocketed, leading to the loss of
millions of dollars. Some of these cases came to the fore in 2020
while a great majority were exposed in 2021

2020 Scams

The cryptocurrency scams that rocked Spain in 2020 were profound,
and losses ran into billions of dollars. Most notorious was the
bitcoin scam revolving around Arbicorp, owned by Santiago Fuentes.
Fuentes was arrested by law enforcement agencies after it was
alleged that he had scammed investors through the misrepresentation
of facts.

This led to losses running into over $1 billion, exacerbated by the
fact that the country was embroiled in a financial crisis
occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The modus operandi of Fuentes' scam involved convincing potential
investors to sink funds into Arbicorp in exchange for obtaining 1%
interest on their daily deposits. However, after the investors
found it impossible to access their funds, things fell apart and
the cat was out of the bag.

In the course of the investigation, it was also discovered that the
trading bot experienced a glitch that led to a financially
precarious situation for Arbicorp. The number of individuals
affected by the scam was well over 100,000 persons and the loss of
funds amounted to a staggering $1.07 billion.

Similarly, another cryptocurrency scam was unearthed by Spanish
authorities in 2020 which can best be described as a Ponzi scheme.
The scheme involved the main culprit, Biosca Rodriguez offering
clients returns of around 20% on investments by supposedly buying
cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and Ethereum.

Rodriguez ran the scheme by presenting the fact that he owned
Algorithm Group although investigations revealed that the company
was not registered with the Spanish National Securities Markets
Commission.

At the start of the scheme, Rodriguez earned the trust of the
investors by paying out the returns on time but, shortly after, and
to the surprise of investors, reduced the returns to 10 % weekly.
According to legal documents gleaned from a class action lawsuit,
$298 million went up in smoke with the money being taken from a
wide range of individuals regardless of social class and
profession.

On the Flipside

Regardless of the epidemic of scams in the country, institutions
are still embracing crypto

Spanish healthcare group Biziondo, specializing in spine
treatments, announced that it will accept bitcoin and other crypto
as payment

The country recently gave the go-ahead for institutional crypto
investment

2021 Scams

As 2020 rolled into 2021, the incidences of cryptocurrency scams
continued unabated, clogging the courts with legal actions for
crimes, as well as civil claims. At the start of the year, the
Spanish police busted a cryptocurrency scam ring and arrested four
people in connection to a $15 million Ponzi scheme. The suspects
were of several nationalities and operated by verbally convincing
their victims to send them bitcoins.

Perpetrators told the investors that the received bitcoins would be
invested with a company that was not even in existence. A total of
380 bitcoins which is estimated to be worth $15 million was lost to
the criminal syndicate and authorities believe that there may have
been more victims who have failed to come forward.

A month ago, a platform based in Malta called Nimbus was exposed to
have made away with the funds of over 4,000 investors amounting to
a total of $166 million. A large portion of the individuals that
fell victims to the cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme were Spanish
citizens.

Fingered in this scam is Andrea Zanon who had formerly served in
the World Bank and worked closely with former US president, Bill
Clinton. It has been alleged that Zanon pilfered the sum of $137
million and disappeared without a trace after formally indicating
to investors that he was part of a trading company that provided
investors monthly capital of up to 15% and that the investments are
protected through a computer program.

The Aftermath

While both 2020 and 2021 have been characterized by cryptocurrency
scams, 2021 has been inundated with more arrests and certainly
increased legal action. In addition to criminal proceedings, there
has also been a flurry of class-action lawsuits instituted by
affected parties.

On March 17, 2021, the victims of the cryptocurrency scam
orchestrated by Biosca Rodriguez in which $298 million was lost,
proceeded to file a class-action lawsuit against him. This
particular case is a pioneering one as it is the first class-action
lawsuit about cryptocurrencies in the history of the Spanish
country.

In addition to the institution of a class-action lawsuit, there is
also the formation of a union called the Association of People
Affected by Cryptocurrency Investors (AAIC) which is an association
of the persons who have lost funds as a result of these
cryptocurrency scams. By working under the umbrella of the AAIC,
the grievances of the victims will be amplified and justice will be
swiftly administered.

According to Emilia Zaballos, the president of the Association of
People Affected by Cryptocurrency Investors the number of victims
of these cryptocurrency scams is on a steady increase and, as such,
AAIC membership is also experiencing a spike in enrollment.

The Reason for the Increasing Number of Cryptocurrency Scams

The rise in the occurrence of these cryptocurrency scams can be
traced to the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies in itself
which places it outside the purview of government regulation and
scrutiny. Without a central body vetting and authorizing the
veracity of the investments, it is easy for unsuspecting
individuals to fall victim to these scams.

As more persons and institutions have entered the cryptocurrency
space, market capitalization has grown exponentially and recently
exceeded the $2 trillion mark. The availability of huge amounts of
funds in an unregulated sector is a major attraction to criminally
minded persons as they try to swindle hard-earned funds from
unsuspecting investors.

Conclusion

Spain has experienced quite a number of crypto-related scams in
recent years. In fact, there is now an avalanche of crypto-scam
cases in the courts, even leading to the first-ever class-action
lawsuit on the issue of cryptocurrencies.

These scams have cost 120,000 investors a staggering sum of over
$1.5 billion. These scams paint cryptocurrencies in a negative
light and can deter investors from considering the sector as a
viable investment choice that will significantly hurt the growth of
cryptocurrencies. [GN]

BOOKS INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Books Inc. The case
is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Books Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05118 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 9, 2021).

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

Books Inc. -- https://www.booksinc.net/ -- is an independently
owned and operated bookseller with 10 locations in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRINK'S: Sanchez Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUIS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BRINK'S; DUNBAR ARMORED, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV12553, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June
4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04635 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure
to pay overtime wages at the legally required rate, failure to
provide reporting provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment and/or
during employment, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

Brink's is an American private security and protection company
headquartered outside Richmond, Virginia.

Dunbar Armored, Inc. is a company that provides detective, guard,
and armored car services based in Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
          
         Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
         Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
         Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
         Jennifer P. Suberlak, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                 jennifer.suberlak@ogletree.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Enters Discovery Order in Stiner Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, enters
discovery order in the case, STACIA STINER, et al., Plaintiffs v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-03962-HSG (LB) (N.D. Cal.).

The parties filed three discovery letters raising two disputes: (1)
whether the Plaintiffs are impermissibly seeking new discovery or
instead are permissibly following up on existing requests for
production and (2) the timing and scope of electronically stored
information, or ESI, production.

Discussion

1. Requests for Production - ECF Nos. 255 and 257

In the letter briefs at ECF Nos. 255 and 257, the parties dispute
whether the Plaintiffs' requests for production are follow-up
requests or new requests.  In part based on delays in discovery,
the trial judge -- at the Plaintiffs' requests -- extended the
deadline for the Plaintiffs to file the class-certification motion.
At the March 18, 2021 discovery hearing, the Plaintiffs said that
they did not intend to "serve any additional discovery and take
advantage of any additional time in that way.  However, there are
many issues related to the discovery to date that need follow-up."

The Plaintiffs now ask the Defendants to produce documents
responsive to their initial requests for production because their
review revealed that the prior responses were incomplete.  The
Defendants resist discovery, claiming that the Plaintiffs' requests
are new because they did not follow up on the Defendants'
objections or ask to confer, and it is too late now.  They thus
seek a protective order prohibiting the discovery.

Judge Beeler denies the request for a protective order.  She says
there have been delays in discovery production, and there is an
enormous amount to review.  The point of the extension was to allow
an orderly process for that review in aid of the
class-certification motion.  The Defendants objected to the
discovery on grounds such as relevance and scope.  The parties must
confer about the objections under the Court's discovery procedures
and can raise any disagreements in a letter brief.  That said, at
this point, the Plaintiffs need focus their efforts on the
class-certification motion.

2. ESI - ECF No. 256

In their letter brief filed at ECF No. 256, there are two disputes
about the ESI discovery: The timing of the production through
December 2020 and the appropriateness of ESI discovery in 2021.

First, for the discovery through December 2020, the Defendants have
agreed to produce it but have not said when they will do so.
Within one week, the Defendants must give a date for the
production.

Second, on April 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs asked for ESI for 2021.
The Defendants contend that it is a new request, the parties always
have been focused on ESI through 2020, the Plaintiffs never
mentioned the issue until recently, and if it had been important,
the Plaintiffs would have asked before.  The Plaintiffs contend
that it is not a new request and instead is responsive to requests
it served in 2019.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs point to the importance of
emails that reveal issues such as caregiver understaffing, but it
is late in the game, and depositions ought to provide sufficient
insight.  In sum, on this record, and at this date, the Judge
denies ESI for 2021.

Order

For dispute one, the Plaintiffs' requests are not new, and the
parties must resolve the Defendants' objections through the Court's
discovery procedures.  For dispute two, within one week, the
Defendants must say when they will produce the 2020 ESI.  Judge
Beeler denies the Plaintiffs' request for ESI from 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Discovery Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s98ecefs from Leagle.com.


CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Cutchin Sues Over Toilet Technicians' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN CUTCHIN, DANIEL CRAWFORD, JEROME JAMISON, ANTHONY MORROW,
KEITH RHAMES, JARED SMITH and ROBERT PENA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARLES W.
HOWARD, CALL-A-HEAD CORP., CALL-A-HEAD PORTABLE TOILETS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03162 (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide proper wage statements, and
failure to provide proper annual wage notices.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as portable toilet service
technicians in New York at any time between 2018 and 2021.

Call-A-Head Corp. is an owner and operator of a portable toilet
delivery and sanitation in New York.

Call-A-Head Portable Toilets, Inc. is an owner and operator of a
portable toilet delivery and sanitation in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Gabriel P. Harvis, Esq.
         Baree N. Fett, Esq.
         Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek
         80 Pine Street, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 532-1116
         E-mail: gharvis@eeplaw.com

CANOPY GROWTH: Cannabis Related Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the company, together
with other Canadian licensed cannabis producers continues to defend
as defendants in a proposed class action suit, pending before in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In July 2020, Canopy Growth was added as a defendant in a proposed
class action commenced against a myriad of Canadian licensed
producers including, Aurora Cannabis Inc.; Aurora Cannabis
Enterprises Inc.; AuroraCo.; Aleafiaco; Aleafia Health Inc.; Emblem
Cannabis Corp.; Hexo Corp.; HexoCo; Cronos Group Inc.; Cronosco;
Tilray Canada Ltd.; Organigram Holdings Inc.; OrganigramCo;
MediPharm Labs Corp.; MediPharmCo; CanopyCo; Aphria Inc.; Broker
Coast Cannabis Ltd.; AphriaCo; Emerald Cannabis Corporation;
Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc.; and EmeraldCo.

The proposed class action was commenced in the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench sitting at Calgary.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants, including Canopy Growth, marketed and sold medicinal
and recreational cannabis products with an advertised content of
THC and CBD and that the amount of THC and/or CBD as contained on
the label was wrong and outside the permissible variability limits.


The claim alleges the following legal wrongs: breach of contract
and breach of consumer protection legislation, including the
various Sale of Goods Acts and Consumer Protection Acts; common law
and statutory misrepresentation; negligence in product labelling;
breach of the duty to warn; unjust enrichment; waiver of tort.

The claim seeks $505 million in damages (presumably as between all
of the defendants).

Canopy Growth Corporation is a leading cannabis company with
operations in countries throughout the world. The company produces,
distributes and sells a diverse range of cannabis and hemp-based
products for both recreational and medical purposes under a
portfolio of distinct brands in Canada pursuant to the Cannabis
Act, SC 2018, c 16, and globally pursuant to applicable
international and Canadian legislation, regulations and permits.


CANOPY GROWTH: Disclosure Related Putative Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that US District Court Judge
McNulty granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice the purported class action suit related to to the
company's receivables, business, operations and prospects relating
to, among other things, the demand for its softgel and oil
products.

In November 2019, Canopy Growth and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in three purported class
action claims; two of these complaints have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts, regarding Canopy Growth's receivables, business, operations
and prospects relating to, among other things, the demand for its
softgel and oil products.

The complaint was amended twice, the most recent of which being on
October 9, 2020. On November 23, 2020, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint.

On May 6, 2021, US District Court Judge McNulty granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss, without prejudice to the plaintiffs
filing a third amended complaint in the US District Court, for the
District of New Jersey, within 30 days.

Canopy Growth Corporation is a leading cannabis company with
operations in countries throughout the world. The company produces,
distributes and sells a diverse range of cannabis and hemp-based
products for both recreational and medical purposes under a
portfolio of distinct brands in Canada pursuant to the Cannabis
Act, SC 2018, c 16, and globally pursuant to applicable
international and Canadian legislation, regulations and permits.


CD PROJEKT: Shareholder Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Ballestrasse, writing Screenrant, reports that Action RPG
Cyberpunk 2077's notoriety as a glitch-riddled mess is so profound
that its own developers have poked fun at the fact with video
captures and montages compiling the game's "greatest of" glitches
together. Needless to say, it's a long video. And there's more than
one.

Cyberpunk 2077 has already gone down as one of the most dismal
releases in gaming history since its release in December of last
year, but that doesn't mean that players and critics alike are done
raking it over the coals. Pointing out the game's numerous foibles,
glitches, and bugs has become as much a part of the game's
experience as the game itself. Cyberpunk 2077's developer CD
Projekt Red has since had its hands full dealing with not only
fixing the multiple issues that have ravaged the game, but
disgruntled players demanding refunds and an ongoing slew of
class-action lawsuits from outraged shareholders.

But while Cyberpunk 2077's glitchiness came as a surprise to
players, it certainly wasn't news to the developers. A recent leak
from CDPR reveals that at least one dev made the best of what they
undoubtedly knew would be a bad situation with a video montage of
glitches and errors found in the game during its development. The
videos were subsequently posted on Reddit, but some have been taken
down by the videos' hosting site for violating terms of service.
The post's author, Winds_Howling2, has provided links to the other
videos, which are available to watch in the comments section of the
original post. There are sections in some of the videos that are
absolutely NSFW and won't be shown, but one of the SFW clips set to
"Shooting Stars" shows off some of these glitches:

A lot of the glitches seen in the videos are clearly from the
game's mid-stage development, where problems are more likely to
arise. The question that arises from the leak is more or less did
the developer know that most of these glitches would debut along
with the rest of the game after its release, or were the
compilation videos they made just a hilarious coincidence? Video
montages of errors tend to come out after the game is released, as
a way to rib at the developers. It's not often that the videos are
made before the game's release when glitches are just a normal part
of the development process that are expected to be more or less
gone by release, or at least fixed within a reasonable time frame.

Unfortunately, since these videos were leaked and were probably
never meant to go public, that question will likely go unanswered.
But one thing remains certain overall -- the community has not
forgiven CDPR for the glitches that plagued Cyberpunk 2077 to the
point of ridicule, and are not even close to done with those
coals.

Cyberpunk 2077 is available to play on Google Stadia, PC, PS4, PS5,
Xbox One, and Xbox Series X|S platforms. [GN]


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the court handling Rael
v. The Children's Place, Inc., granted final approval of the class
settlement and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with
the attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount
has been determined.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.

In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff
alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations
of other state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, adding an additional
plaintiff and removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs'
second amended complaint seeks to represent a class of California
purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive relief,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28,
2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the
settlement.

The Company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval
of the class settlement on March 2, 2021.

On March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of the class
settlement and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with
the attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount
has been determined.

The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class
members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees
and expenses and claims administration expenses. In connection with
the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0
million in its consolidated financial statements in the first
quarter of 2017.

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The Company was formerly known as The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc. and changed its name to The Children's
Place, Inc. in June 2014. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CHINACACHE INT'L: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 7 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Central District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd.
American Depositary Shares:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between April
10, 2015 and May 17, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. ("ChinaCache")
American Depositary Shares (also referred to as American Depositary
Receipts) and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiff in the Action has reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $1,800,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on August 27, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., before the
Honorable John W. Holcomb at the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, George E. Brown, Jr. Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 3470 12th St., Riverside, CA
92501, Courtroom 2, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 15, 2020
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses and Plaintiff's reimbursement
for their time and expenses should be approved. The Court reserves
the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other
virtual means.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Proof of Claim Form ("Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator at Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et
al., c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205,
P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063, toll-free number: (866) 274-4004,
Fax: (610) 565-7985, email: info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.chinacachesettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no
later than September 21, 2021 or submitted electronically by 11:59
p.m. EST on September 21, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 6, 2021 by
the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and reimbursement to Plaintiff, must be
filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and
Settling Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later
than August 6, 2021:

Clerk's Office
United States District Court for the Central District of
California
Clerk of the Court
George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse
3470 12th St.
Riverside, CA 92501

Lead Counsel

Pomerantz LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Settling Defendants' Counsel

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Michael B. Carlinsky, Esq.
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10010

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, ChinaCache, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy Lieberman, Esq.
600 Third Ave., 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
212-661-1100
Fax: 917-463-1044
jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et al.
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
Toll-free number: 866-274-4004
Fax: 610-565-7985
www.chinacachesettlement.com

By Order of the Court [GN]

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)

Investors Affected: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Churchill Capital Corp IV. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to
deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a
production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles
touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form/?id=16597&from=1

Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER)

Investors Affected: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Aterian, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii)
the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments
for flawed assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's
purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that
lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid
or artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16597&from=1

Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)

Investors Affected: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Provention Bio, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the teplizumab Biologics License Application
("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and would require
additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA lacked the
evidentiary support the Company had led investors to believe it
possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the teplizumab
BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline
for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16597&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]

CITADEL SALISBURY: Faces Class Action Over Chronic Understaffing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Brown, writing for McKnight's Long-Term Care News, reports
that families of residents at a North Carolina nursing home are
accusing the provider of failing to address its chronic
understaffing in a new class-action lawsuit that alleges the issue
led to neglect.

The suit was brought against the Citadel Salisbury in late May and
alleges the facility's operator, Accordius Health, failed to
correct existing staffing issues when it took over the nursing home
in February 2020, according to a report by NC Policy Watch.

Some of the allegations point to staffing data the facility
submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services showing
nurse staffing met minimum federal requirements on only 10 of 275
days between April 2020 through December 2020 -- during the heart
of COVID-19. For 152 days, the nursing home reported no registered
nurse work hours.

A request for comment from McKnight's Long-Term Care News to
Accordius was not returned by production deadline.

The current lawsuit stems from family complaints that first
surfaced in late 2020. At the time, Accordius said it was working
to address concerns raised by residents and families but assured
the facility was well-staffed.

"The Citadel Salisbury remains committed to providing the highest
quality of care for the residents we serve," Ashely Wilson,
Accordius Vice President for strategy and development, told the
news organization in October. "While staffing has been a
significant challenge for all nursing homes during the COVID-19
pandemic, The Citadel Salisbury is currently well staffed. Our
direct care staffing per resident over the last month exceeds the
national average."

Resident families, however, said the operator's business model was
designed to cut staffing expenses to reduce costs. [GN]

CJJS LLC: McColley Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MCCOLLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CJJS, LLC d/b/a GRAPEVINE PIZZA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03262-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 7, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Prompt Pay, and the Ohio Constitution including failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages, failure to compensate overtime pay, and
failure to maintain employee records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
from approximately July, 2018 through June, 2019.

CJJS, LLC, doing business as Grapevine Pizza, is a pizza restaurant
based in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

                - and –

         Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
         BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 704-0546
         Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
         E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

COINBASE: Sued for Locking Out Consumers from Crypto-accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Leone, Joseph Treseder, Travis Reece, David Beavers, Fazal
Us Saboor Ali and Keisha Pinkney, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coinbase, Inc. and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04286 (N.D. Cal.,
June 4, 2021), seeks any and all available relief, including
equitable relief and recovery of damages resulting from negligence,
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment and
for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law under the
Business and Professions Code section 17200 and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

Coinbase is a publicly-traded corporation involved in the business
of cryptocurrency exchange. It provides an online platform where
consumers can store their currencies on a digital wallet, as well
as to buy, sell, spend and trade cryptocurrency.

Plaintiffs allege that Coinbase prevented its consumers from
accessing their accounts and/or funds for arbitrary reasons and
arbitrary amounts of time, and thereby preventing Plaintiffs access
to their funds. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
      Kate Nicole G. Blanco, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
             kblanco@mahoney-law.net


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ontario Trust Funds Granted Lead Roles in Palm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PALM TRAN, INC. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1577
PENSION PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, BRETT A.
ROBERTS, and KENNETH S. BOOTH, Defendants, Civil Case No.
20-cv-12698 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Motion of Ontario Provincial Council of
Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund and Millwright Regional Counsel of
Ontario Pension Trust Fund for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel.

The putative class action lawsuit is filed under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  The lawsuit
asserts violations of federal law based on alleged false and
misleading statements and omissions, concerning Credit Acceptance's
business, operations, and adherence to the relevant laws and
regulations.

The Plaintiffs claim that the statements and/or omissions concern
(i) "topping off the pools of loans that the Defendants packaged
and securitized with higher-risk loans"; (ii) "making high interest
subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers
would be unable to repay"; (iii) "subjecting borrowers to hidden
finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate
ceiling mandated by state law"; and (iv) "taking excessive and
illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers."

The following movants filed a motion seeking appointment as lead
plaintiffs and appointment of their choice of lead counsel: (1)
Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan;
(2) Ontario Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund
and Millwright Regional Counsel of Ontario Pension Trust Fund; and
(3) Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Trust Fund and Canadian
Elevator Industry Welfare Fund.

Judge Parker finds that Palm Tran and Canadian Elevator Funds
concede that they are not the movants with the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class.  Ontario Trust Funds,
therefore, benefits from the PSLRA's statutory presumption that
they are the most adequate Plaintiffs to represent the purported
class.  They have the largest financial interest in the relief
sought -- with a claimed loss of $326,271.51 -- and neither Palm
Tran nor Canadian Elevator Funds has rebutted the statutory
presumption in accordance with the PSLRA.  Ontario Trust Funds also
makes a prima facie showing that they satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23.

For these reasons, Judge Parker concludes that Ontario Trust Funds
should be appointed the Lead Plaintiff.  Moreover, their
submissions demonstrate that their chosen counsel is competent,
experienced, and qualified to represent the interests of the
Plaintiff class.

Accordingly, Judge Parker granted the Motion of Ontario Provincial
Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund and Millwright Regional
Counsel of Ontario Pension Trust Fund for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel.  Ontario
Provincial Council of Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund and Millwright
Regional Counsel of Ontario Pension Trust Fund are appointed as the
Lead Plaintiffs.  Labaton Sucharow is appointed as the Lead Counsel
and Clark Hill is appointed as the Liaison Counsel.

Judge Parker denied (i) the Motion of Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated
Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel and (ii)
Canadian Elevator Funds' Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/995ejef4 from Leagle.com.


CROWN RESORTS: Faces AUSTRAC Probe Amid Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Kaye, writing for Reuters, reports that Australia's
anti-money-laundering agency widened a probe into due diligence at
casinos to include the three biggest operators, ratcheting up
pressure on a sector already struggling with the pandemic and
heightened regulatory scrutiny.

Months into an investigation of top player Crown Resorts, the
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) said
it was formally looking into possible breaches of background check
rules at rival Star Entertainment Group (SGR.AX) and New Zealand's
SkyCity Entertainment Group (SKC.NZ).

That means owners of casinos in Australia's five most populous
cities now face enforcement investigations that could carry fines
or restrict their licences.

Crown already has been under intense pressure after an inquiry this
year found it unfit for a licence at a just-opened A$2.2 billion
($1.7 billion) Sydney casino, sparking royal commissions in two
other states and fueling class-action lawsuits, as well as an
AUSTRAC probe that was expanded to its Perth city resort.

"The Australian casino sector is at risk of criminal misuse due to
the products and services they offer," AUSTRAC CEO Nicole Rose
wrote in an editorial published in The Australian newspaper hours
before the casino operators disclosed the investigations in market
filings.

"We have an enforcement investigation under way at Crown casino
that demonstrates the seriousness of our concerns. And we also have
significant compliance work under way on the casino sector," Rose
wrote.

AUSTRAC later confirmed the investigations -- plus a separate
investigation of No. 3 lender National Australia Bank Ltd --
without commenting further. read more

All three casino companies said AUSTRAC was concerned with their
management of "customers identified as high risk and politically
exposed persons", that the agency had not decided whether to take
enforcement action, and that they would cooperate fully.

The crackdown may meanwhile complicate a A$9 billion buyout by Star
of larger rival Crown, which has been fielding takeover approaches.
read more

"If it's found to be a systematic and ongoing lackadaisical
attitude to enforcement then (a regulator objection) seems likely,"
said Nathan Bell, portfolio manager of Intelligent Investor, which
has Crown shares.

"If Star is seen to have good standards and there is a genuine
effort to weed out these people then . . . the regulators would
rather Crown was kept in Australian hands and Star's takeover
proposal would remain live."

Angus Hewitt, an analyst at Morningstar, said the widening of the
investigation was "obviously not good news for the embattled
casinos, and we expect fines to be the most likely outcome".

Crown shares were down 1.5% in a flat overall market (.AXJO) and
Star shares were down 3%. SkyCity's New Zealand-listed shares did
not trade because of a public holiday.

In a separate development, Crown said it had received legal advice
that it had contravened casino laws by selling over A$160 million
of gambling chips to people paying with credit or debit cards from
2012 to 2016 -- potentially sparking yet another investigation.
[GN]

DIAGEO NA: Tedeschi Files Mislabeling Suit v. Rum Product
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tedeschi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diageo North America, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-04940 (S.D. N.Y., June 3, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and New York General
Business Law.

Diageo North America, Inc. manufactures, imports, markets, labels
and sells Ron Zacapa 23 Centenario Rum from Guatemala which was
marketed as "aged for 23 years." Tedeschi claims that the rum's age
was falsely printed on its label considering the traditional
dynamic aging process in which rums of different ages and
personalities are blended, then subsequently stored in selected
barrels to continue the maturing process. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
      Great Neck NY 11021-3104
      Tel: (516) 268-7080
      Fax: (516) 234-7800
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Winning Bets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Fogel, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that DraftKings,
a fantasy sports betting service, is embroiled in a federal lawsuit
as a Michigan man claims the company stiffed him on a winning bet
-- and contends that he's not the only one.

Ryan Cristman, of Walled Lake, contends that he bet on a Boston
Bruins game and won a jackpot over $5,000, according to the lawsuit
filedon May 12 in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District.

The Nevada-based betting service, which boasted 1.5 million unique
customers per month in the first quarter of the year, launched in
Michigan on Jan. 22 after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a
bill allowing sports betting.

"Sports betting online is new, they're trying to get users as fast
as they can, to essentially legalize their business model. Their
focus seems to be expansion and revenue and there's little thought
and attention to consumer protection," said Ari Scharg, a lawyer at
Edelson PC in Chicago, who is representing Cristman in court. "They
lied to Mr. Cristman when he reached out to figure out what was
going on."

But DraftKings told Cristman it was all a mistake. They had marked
the game's odds incorrectly, according to the support email
received by Cristman, citing a "display issue." The email was
included in the lawsuit.

DraftKings had not yet responded in court to the lawsuit and could
not be reached for comment on June 6.

The lawsuit notes that prior to its launch of its sports betting
("Sportsbook") app in Michigan, DraftKings CEO Jason Robins stated
that they would be delivering the signature DraftKings experience
to Michiganders. The filed suit sardonically claims that
"Unfortunately, the 'signature DraftKings experience' offered by
Defendant involves the systemic practice of refusing to pay winning
wagers to customers who are contractually entitled to them."

According to the lawsuit, here's how the events unfolded:

Cristman wagered $915 on a hockey game on the evening of Feb. 10.
It was the Boston Bruins versus the New York Rangers.

Cristman wagered the bet that the Bruins would not lose by three
points. He called customer support to confirm that his bet was
indeed +3 on the Bruins, and they confirmed that the wager and its
odds were displayed correctly. If Cristman won, he would be owed
$5,586.

He eventually won the bet, as the Bruins did not lose by more than
three points. The game ended with a Bruins overtime win, 3-2.
Cristman's bet, however, was reportedly incorrectly displayed after
the game had concluded, reading minus-3 goals rather than +3. In
the lawsuit, Cristman supplies screenshots of the receipt and the
subsequent bet that he placed.

DraftKings replied with a customer support message concluding that
there was "a display issue" with the bet and that instead of his
winnings, he would be refunded his wager and offered a $50 free
wager in the future. Cristman followed up through email with the
claim that his bet was a winning one, then DraftKings failed to
respond and locked Cristman's account in retaliation, per the
lawsuit.

"This was two days in. I had been winning, and they froze my
account," said Cristman. "They sent different chat operators to
answer my emails, just spinning me around in circles."

The lawsuit itself is filed on the grounds that "DraftKings failed
to honor the winning wagers its customers paid for by incorrectly
marking the wagers as losses and, as a result, prevented their
customers from receiving the payout that they were entitled to",
entering the territory of a class-action lawsuit, as allegedly
others find themselves in the same predicament as Cristman.

In addition, the damages owed to Cristman are reported by the
lawsuit to be insufficient to truly rectify DraftKings' practices,
which makes it perfect for a class-action endeavor in providing
"the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and
comprehensive supervision by a single court." A single court would
reportedly offer a more manageable venue in time and effort to get
DraftKings to pay up.

This isn't the first time sportsbetting sites have been sued and
accused shady business practices. In the District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Johnson v. Fanduel was a case in which
Fanduel, a sportsbetting site similar to DraftKings, was involved
in a class-action lawsuit in February 2016 over allegations of
lying about the odds of certain games. DraftKings was also involved
as a defendant in the suit, implicated for the same alleged
practices.

"DraftKings is in a precarious situation. They've undertaken a
massive PR campaign to lobby other states to allow sports wagering.
It seems like they want to retain control to unilaterally void bets
when they lose," said Scharg. "There's going to be a lot of people
watching, as they want to know if it's going to be OKto legalize it
in their state."

With sports betting recently legalized in Michigan, DraftKings
likely saw it as an opportunity to expand its reach and connect
with an entirely new user base. But according to the Cristman and
his lawyers, it was done hastily and without care for its users.

The lawsuit states that "the precise number of members of the
proposed Class is unknown to plaintiff at this time, but, based on
information and belief, Class members are so numerous that their
individual joinder is impracticable."

In layman's terms, that means that there are too many people
reported to have been slighted by DraftKings for a union of them to
even be possible. Cristman is representing the many people to whom
DraftKings owe money. Members of the afflicted will be notified
after the fact if the lawsuit is won. The amount of money said to
be owed to DraftKings users is currently unknown, but if Cristman
and his lawyers are correct, the sum may be large.

"It's been months, I haven't bet on DraftKings since," said
Cristman. [GN]

ELITE 1 FINANCIAL: Floyd Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite 1 Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Louis Floyd, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite 1 Financial
Services LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04441 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2021).

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

Elite 1 Financial Services -- https://elite1finance.com/ -- is a
non-banking lender providing nationwide funds and investments for
residential and commercial real estate projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EML PAYMENTS: Shine Lawyers Mulls Class Action Over Subsidiary Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kavanagh, writing for BankingDay, reports that class action
law firm Shine Lawyers has announced that it is considering legal
action against EML Payments, over its failure to notify the market
of regulatory and governance issues affecting its subsidiary, PFS
Card Services Ireland Ltd.

Last month, the Central Bank of Ireland wrote to PFS to raise
concerns about the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing
within the business, as well as about the company's risk management
framework and governance.

Shine's class action practice leader Joshua Aylward said in a
statement that the Central Bank of Ireland wrote to PFS on May 13
and there was a delay in responding which constitutes a breach of
continuous disclosure rules.

Aylward said: "EML did not request a trading halt for almost four
days after learning of these concerns and then took another 48
hours to inform the market."

"Our claim will allege that EML failed in its obligations,
significantly impacting share prices for thousands of investors.
Investors who purchased shares between 19 December 2020 and 17 May
2021 are encouraged to register their interest on our website for
this class action."

EML's statement to the ASX on May 19 says that in its
correspondence the Central Bank of Ireland states that it "is
minded to issue directions" to PFS pursuant to the Central Bank
Act.

The directions, if made, "could materially impact" the European
operations of the prepaid financial services business, including
potentially restricting PFS's activities under its Irish
authorisation. [GN]

ESURANCE PROPERTY: Rawlins Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Vickie Rawlins, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Esurance Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 21SL-CC00671 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 9,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00660 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

Esurance Insurance Company -- https://www.esurance.com/ -- operates
as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, car, renters,
home, life, health, and flood insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Deborah J. Campbell, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP - St Louis
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 241-1800
          Fax: (314) 259-5959
          Email: deborah.campbell@dentons.com


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections &
Outsourcing of New England, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
Dei'nyejah Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing of New
England, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00272-RJC-DSC
(W.D.N.C., June 9, 2021).

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

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, also referred to as FCO --
https://www.fco.com/ -- is the largest collector in the Multi
Housing industry (Garden, Highrise, Student, Military, Corporate,
Assisted Living).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
          THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
          Charlotte, NC 28262
          Phone: (704) 371-4333
          Fax: (704) 371-3015
          Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com


FCA US: Court Terminates Initial Bid to Dismiss Johnson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DORTHEA JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-12690 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F.
Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, terminated Defendant FCA's
initially-filed motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot.

On Dec. 14, 2020, Defendant FCA filed a motion to dismiss the
claims brought against it in the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint.  After FCA filed that motion, the Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint.  And FCA has now filed a
motion to dismiss with respect to the claims raised in that amended
pleading.  Accordingly, FCA's initially-filled motion to dismiss is
now moot.

Judge Leitman, therefore, terminated that motion without prejudice
as moot.

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Tossed in Haines Torts Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John P. Haines v. Fidelity
National Title of Florida, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-02995 (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn K. Mizelle entered an order denying
as moot motion to certify class.

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

Fidelity National , a Fortune 500 company, is a provider of title
insurance and settlement services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. FNF generated approximately $8.469 billion in annual
revenue in 2019 from its title- and real estate-related
operations.[CC]


FIFTY WEST: Faces Morse Suit Over Tip Pooling & Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MORSE, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIFTY WEST BREWING COMPANY LLC, NEW BROTHERS BREWING,
LLC, and ROBERT J. SLATTERY, JR., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00377-DRC (S.D. Ohio, June 4, 2021) brings this collective
and class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants as one of the members of Subgroup 1, who are responsible
for interfacing with customers, including taking orders, preparing
beverages, packaging orders, and processing orders for customers,
between March 21, 2020 and May 9, 2020. Then when Fifty West
resumed in-person dining at one or more of its locations on or
about May 10, 2020, the Plaintiff was again employed by the
Defendant as one of the members of the Subgroup 2 to continue the
take-out service as well as greet, serve, and clean up after
dine-in customers.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of willfully withholding
take-out service tips from members of Subgroups 1 and 2 and then
redistribute them to managers. Moreover, the Defendants illegally
used the tip credit to offset its minimum wage obligation to
members of Subgroup 2, while at the same time required members of
Subgroup 2 to participate in an illegal tip pooling arrangement
with employees who do not customarily and regularly received tips.


As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful policies and
practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were not paid at least minimum wage for each hour worked. Thus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips,
unreimbursed expenses, restitution for unjust enrichment,
liquidated, compensatory, and punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
Court deems appropriate.

The Corporate Defendants sell food and beverages to customers.
Robert J. Slattery owns and operates the Corporate Defendants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Butler, Esq.
          Susan L. Butler, Esq.
          Daniel J. Treadaway, Esq.
          MEZIBOV BUTLER
          615 Elsinore Place
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Tel: (513) 621-8800
          Fax: (513) 621-8833
          E-mail: bbutler@mezibov.com
                  sbutler@mezibov.com
                  dtreadaway@mezibov.com

FIRST CHINESE: Court Recertifies Remand Order in Guzman Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ALVARO RAMIREZ GUZMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. FIRST
CHINESE PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORPORATION,
Defendant. EUGENIA BARAHONA ALVARADO, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE FOR
HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 20-cv-3929 (JGK), 20-cv-3930
(JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York recertifies the Remand Order
entered on Feb. 18, 2021, for immediate appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs, Alvaro Ramirez Guzman, Elide Agustina Mejia
Herrera, Leticia Panama Rivas and Eugenia Barahona Alvarado, have
moved for a new order, certifying for interlocutory appeal, the
Court's Opinion and Order, dated Feb. 18, 2021, denying their
motions to remand.  The Court previously issued an Order, on May 7,
2021, certifying the Remand Order for interlocutory appeal,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

By letter, dated May 26, 2021, the counsel for the Plaintiffs
informed the Court that the counsel failed to file the Plaintiffs'
application with the Court of Appeals within 10 days from the entry
of the Certification Order, as required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).  The counsel for the Plaintiffs stated that this failure
occurred because the deadline was incorrectly calendared by their
firm, and counsel has offered further justifications for the
oversight.

For substantially the same reasons explained in the Certification
Order, Judge Koeltl opines that recertification of the Remand Order
is appropriate in the case.  The controlling question of law raised
by the Remand Order is as follows: "Whether this Court has federal
jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 185, over
state court actions in which the state court plaintiffs filed
motions to vacate an arbitration award and stay further arbitration
proceedings in a class action arbitration that began pursuant to a
collective bargaining agreement?"

Judge Koeltl holds that this question remains a "controlling
question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion," and its prompt resolution could "materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."  In short,
none of the underlying factors that initially warranted
certification have changed.

The Plaintiffs' letter also suggests the request for a
recertification was made because of a genuine failure to calendar
the deadline.  The Plaintiffs have represented that their letter
was filed on the same day the mistake was discovered.  Further,
their letter states that the Plaintiffs "do not require another 10
days to file," and that the "petition would be filed immediately
upon the issuance of a recertification order."  Moreover, the case
has been stayed during the interim period.  Thus, prejudice to the
Defendants would be minimal.

Accordingly, Judge Koeltl grants the Plaintiffs' request and
recertifies the Remand Order for immediate appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  He certifies that the controlling
question of law listed warrants immediate appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  Both cases will remain stayed, pending a
decision from the Court of Appeals.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bvdb3xzw from
Leagle.com.


FLO HEALTH: Kiss Sues Over Users' Disclosed Intimate Health Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADELINE KISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK,
INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and FLURRY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-04333 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach
of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Stored Communications Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, the California Business and Professions
Code, the Federal Wiretap Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act.

The case arises from Flo Health's alleged disclosure of the
intimate health data of Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker users to
third parties, including Advertiser Defendants. Flo Health
disclosed its users' highly sensitive health information to the
Advertiser Defendants and other third parties through software
development kits (SDKs) that it incorporated into the Flo App.
Advertiser Defendants knew that the data collected and received
from Flo Health included intimate health data but they did nothing
to stop Flo Health from sharing this information. By continuing to
contract with Flo Health to receive this data and using this data
for their own purposes, Advertiser Defendants intentionally
intruded upon the Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy, the suit
asserts.

Flo Health, Inc. is a mobile application developer with principal
executive offices located at 1013 Centre Road, Suite 403-B,
Wilmington, Delaware.

Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California.

Facebook, Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate
based in Menlo Park, California.

AppsFlyer, Inc. is an application software developer based in San
Francisco, California.

Flurry, Inc. is an application software developer based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
         Frank Busch, Esq.
         WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 725
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 357-8900
         Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
         E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                 busch@wvbrlaw.com

                - and –

         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
         E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                 afiorilla@lowey.com

                - and –

         Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
         Michael P. Canty, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 907-0700
         Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
         E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
                 mcanty@labaton.com

FRONTIER MGMT: First Amended Wright Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY, HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA
LEWIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING LLC,
and GH SENIOR LIVING LLC, dba GREENHAVEN ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge John
A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Joshua Wright, Loretta Stanley, Haley Quam, and Aiesha Lewis
("Plaintiffs") filed the putative class action against the
Defendants over several of their wage and hour policies.  The
Defendants operate a chain of retirement and assisted living
communities.

Plaintiff Wright worked as a medication technician at one of the
assisted living locations in California from April 12, 2018, until
March 15, 2019.  Stanley worked as a lead medical technician and
caregiver at a facility in Oregon from December 2018, until
September 2019.  Quam worked as a caregiver at a facility in
Washington from September 2017, until September 2018. Lewis worked
as a caregiver at a facility in Illinois from July 2017, until
October 2017.  The Plaintiffs, collectively, allege that the
Defendants' wage and hour practices violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

Plaintiff Wright, on behalf of the California class, alleges
violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code and
behavior amounting to unfair business practices in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.  Quam, on behalf of the
Washington class, alleges violations of Washington labor law and
the Washington Consumer Protection Act.  Lewis, on behalf of the
Oregon class, alleges a host of labor violations pursuant to Oregon
law.  Stanley, on behalf of the Illinois class, alleges violations
of Illinois labor law, consumer fraud, and deceptive business
practices.  The Plaintiffs' state law claims are similar in that
they generally allege that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate them and denied them several employee entitlements like
meal and rest periods and accurate, itemized wage statements.

The Defendants move to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, arguing the
Plaintiffs have failed to present any specific, non-theoretical
factual allegations supporting the 27 claims against them.  They
argue the motion to dismiss is rife with unsupported legal
conclusions.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing the
Defendants seek to inappropriately impose a heightened pleading
standard on their FAC.

Opinion

A. Meal and Rest Break Claims

The Plaintiffs' fourth, twelfth, twenty-first, and twenty-second
causes of action are unpaid meal and rest break claims.  They
allege that the Defendants require them to remain on duty during
rest breaks and while clocked out for meal periods.  Further, the
Defendants require them to carry communication device at all times,
so that they can be reached to handle any job-related issues.  The
Plaintiffs contend that this policy denies them their statutorily
required meal and rest breaks.  In addition, they are not
compensated for any meal and rest breaks missed as a result of this
policy.

The Defendants argue that these claims must be dismissed because
they are "conclusory, incomplete, and entirely theoretical."

Judge Mendez agrees with the Defendants.  He opines it is not
difficult to imagine a situation in which an employee has a meal or
rest break interrupted by a phone call to help with a resident of
one of the assisted living facilities.  However, the allegations in
the FAC "stop short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief."  The Plaintiffs do not
describe an instance in which the Defendants actually interfered
with one of their meal or rest breaks, alleging only that the
Defendants "require them to carry communication devices  with them
at all times" and that the Defendants "require them to respond to
calls regardless of whether they are taking a meal or rest break."
These allegations are factually lacking, says Judge Mendez.  He
cannot reasonably infer that the Defendants are liable for the
misconduct alleged from the few and unspecific facts presented in
support of the meal and rest break claims.

The Plaintiffs argue that the FAC alleges that the putative classes
were "on call" during their meal and rest periods, and that fact
alone is sufficient to state a claim under California, Oregon, and
Washington law, regardless of whether an interruption actually
occurred.

Judge Mendez holds that they are correct that, under California,
Washington, and Oregon law, an employee should either not be on
call during his meal or rest breaks, or else receive compensation
for being on call.  But these legal conclusions have no impact on
the FAC's factual deficiencies, he says.  The Plaintiffs have
vaguely alleged that the Defendants require them to remain on duty
"during rest breaks and while clocked out for meal periods."  Thus,
Plaintiffs' meal and rest break allegations fall short of
plausibility.

For these reasons, Judge Mendez dismisses the Plaintiffs' fourth,
twelfth, twenty-first, and twenty-second causes of action for
on-duty and unpaid meal and rest breaks.

B. Unpaid Wage Claims

The Plaintiffs' first, second, third, fifth, tenth, eleventh,
fourteenth, fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth,
twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty fifth causes of action
assert various types of unpaid wage claims.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants failed or refused to pay them minimum and overtime
wages, did not pay them for all hours worked, and made unlawful
deductions from their wages.

The Defendants argue that these claims fail because they do not
include any facts specifying the Plaintiffs "were not paid any
specific sum for any specific amount of time allegedly worked on
any specific date or during any specific pay period."

Judge Mendez finds that while the FAC alleges that Wright and other
California employees were required to use a malfunctioning
timeclock that prevented them from logging eight to twelve hours of
work per pay period, more specific facts are absent.  The
Plaintiffs do not specify what sort of work-related tasks they were
required to complete during that time, if any.  And they do not
explain how the Defendants went about requiring them to show up
early.

Insofar as the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants round down
their time worked to the nearest fifth minute, and that this
results in underpayment of wages, the allegation similarly lacks
specificity.  The FAC does not allege who was actually affected by
this practice], when, for what amount of time, at whose direction,
and the approximate amount of wages they are owed as a result.  In
sum, the Plaintiffs allegations are overly general.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Mendez dismisses the Plaintiffs'
first, second, third, fifth, tenth, eleventh, fourteenth,
fifteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third,
twenty-fourth, and twenty fifth causes of action for unpaid wages.

C. Unreimbursed Business Expenses Claim

The Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action is for unreimbursed business
expenses.  The Plaintiffs allege Wright and the other California
employees were not reimbursed for the use of "their personal cell
phones, in addition to their radios" while working.  However, the
Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific instances in which an
employee was required to use his or her personal cell phone for
work-related purposes.  They do not specify whether they incurred
any actual expenses related to the use of their cell phones;
whether they requested the Defendants reimburse them for those
expenses; or that the Defendants refused to tender any requested
reimbursements.

Absent any supporting details, Judge Mendez cannot infer that the
Plaintiffs' claim for unreimbursed business expenses is plausible.
He dismisses the Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action for
unreimbursed business expenses.

D. Derivative Claims

The Plaintiffs' sixth, seventh, ninth, thirteenth, sixteenth,
twentieth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh causes of action allege
violations of state consumer protection and unfair business
practice laws, as well as waiting time and inaccurate wage
statement penalties.  As currently alleged, these claims are
dependent upon adequately pled claims for failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure
to pay minimum wages.  For the reasons he described, Judge Mendez
opines that none of those preceding claims are adequately pled.
Thus, the derivative claims necessarily fail.

Moreover, he says the Plaintiffs' twenty-seventh cause of action
for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFDBPA") fails as a matter of law because
Plaintiffs are employees and not consumers.  And the Plaintiffs'
sixteenth cause of action for violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act ("CPA") also fails as a matter of law because simple
wage and hour violations do not constitute CPA violations.

The Plaintiffs dispute this and contend that there has been a
violation of the CPA because: (1) the Defendants have per se
violated statutory wage and hour laws; and (2) the Defendants'
conduct toward their employees constitutes unfair and deceptive
business practices.  With regard to the per se violations, "the
Washington Supreme Court has been clear that a per se unfair trade
practice exists when a statute which has been declared by the
Legislature to constitute an unfair or deceptive act in trade or
commerce has been violated."  The wage and hour statutes at issue
here have not been given a similar designation.  Thus, there can be
no per se violation.

As for the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants' conduct
constitutes unfair and deceptive business practices, for their
conduct to fall within this category, the Plaintiffs must allege
more than merely the failure to comply with Washington's wage laws,
but rather the payment of wages at rates below what the Defendants
represented to them and the general public.  The Plaintiffs have
pled no facts regarding what representations, if any, were made by
the Defendants to them and the general public concerning payment of
wages.  Nor have they presented any supporting facts in their
opposition brief.

Judge Mendez, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiffs' sixth, seventh,
ninth, thirteenth, sixteenth, twentieth, twenty-sixth, and
twenty-seventh causes of action for violations of state consumer
protection and unfair business practice laws and waiting time and
inaccurate wage statement penalties.

E. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiffs' request leave to file a second amended complaint,
if any of their claims are found to be deficient.  The Court need
not grant leave to amend where amendment would be futile.  The
Plaintiffs have already filed two complaints and, notably, supplied
no further factual detail in their opposition brief.  They,
therefore, do not appear able to cure the FAC's deficiencies.
Amendment, at this point, would be futile.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs' sixteenth and twenty-seventh causes of action fail as a
matter of law.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend is denied.

Order

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez grants with prejudice
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ue2tfmfe from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL ATLANTIC: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL COMPANY, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-04359 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed calls on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6535 beginning on
or around May 6, 2019 in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
The Defendant purported utilized an "automatic telephone dialing
system" in placing its calls. Also, the Defendant failed to obtain
the Plaintiff's prior express consent" to receive calls using an
ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed by
causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for
which they had previously paid, and by invading their privacy.
Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and treble damages for himself
and for other similarly situated individuals, and all other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

Global Atlantic Financial Company is an insurance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

GOLDEN CITY: Faces Pu FLSA Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO PU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN CITY RESTAURANT HUANG'S INC. (D/B/A
GOLDEN CITY) and LEE WAH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05035
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread of hours premium,
failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Pu was employed as a delivery worker at the Golden City
restaurant in Bronx, New York from November 19, 2019 until on or
about May 11, 2021.

Golden City Restaurant Huang's Inc. is an owner and operator of a
Chinese food restaurant under the name Golden City, located at 2324
Arthur Ave., Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
         E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing Challenges Over Use of Mandatory Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Mullin, writing for The Asset, reports that just weeks after
Goldman Sachs was called out for its toxic workplace culture that
forces analysts and associates to work inhuman numbers of hours
under intense pressure to unreasonable deadlines, the firm is back
in the spotlight. This time around efforts to compel it to ban
forced arbitration as a way of dealing with harassment and
discrimination.

And just as the case of Goldman and its treatment of juniors was
representative of wider industry practices, Goldman's use of forced
arbitration to throw a veil of secrecy over harassment and
discrimination claims similarly speaks to how the banking industry
seeks to protect itself from reputational damage in another area of
toxic workplace behaviour.

Shareholder proposal No. 6 at Goldman's recent stockholders meeting
-- that the board oversees the preparation of a public report on
the impact of the use of mandatory arbitration on the firm's
employees and workplace culture -- came within a whisker of being
passed.

It didn't pass but almost half the votes were cast in support of
it. That was enough to force the investment bank into a June 4
policy reversal. "In consideration of the feedback we have
received, as well as the results of the recent shareholder vote at
our Annual Meeting, we believe it is appropriate to undertake a
review to assess this issue comprehensively," the firm said in a
statement.

The stockholder proposal was put forward by the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, which tabled it because the use of arbitration, it
says, "undermines the establishment of diverse and equitable
workplaces". It said Goldman's use of arbitration "keeps important
information from investors and employees", and that "Goldman Sachs
employees have alleged significant harassment and discrimination".

Investors' concerns about arbitration's potential to conceal the
existence of harassment and discrimination are especially acute at
Goldman Sachs, the foundation added, "where thousands of women have
alleged gender bias". This is a reference to the Chen-Oster v.
Goldman Sachs class-action lawsuit, ongoing since 2010, claiming
gender discrimination around compensation and promotion.

The use of forced arbitration is not unique to Goldman Sachs. It's
used elsewhere on Wall Street. The process is written into
employment contracts. Those opposed to the practice say the
non-disclosure agreements employees are bound by perpetuate a
conspiracy of secrecy around predatory and other types of
unacceptable behaviour in the banking sector. By enforcing a regime
of silence, arbitration protects firms, not to mention perpetrators
of harassment or discriminatory behaviour. And it backs victims
into realms of isolation.

Some US state legislatures have banned the use of mandatory
arbitration in employment contracts when it involves claims of
sexual harassment. At Federal level, the Forced Arbitration
Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act was re-introduced earlier this year.
The bill is seeking to eliminate forced arbitration clauses in
employment, consumer and civil rights cases, and allow consumers
and workers to agree to arbitration after a dispute occurs.

Yet again, instances of poor governance in banking have been thrown
to the fore. And yet again, banks have been seen to engage in empty
posturing around workplace diversity while doing little to
eliminate noxious practices that occur day to day.

Throwing huge amounts of money at instances that emerge, which is
what banks do, in effect paying hush money and controlling
information flow through what amounts to bribery, is surely not
acceptable in these environmental, social and governance
(ESG)-heightened times.

Forced arbitration doesn't just protect firms where harassment or
discrimination occur; it also keeps vital information away from
investors and other stakeholders. Shareholders need to get tough on
unacceptable workplace practices and the cultures that allow them
to exist and persist, and force change or disinvest.

Whether it's appalling workplace governance or greenwashing in the
context of climate-change and environmental transition, concealing
information, seeking to mislead, or coercing individuals into
silence has never been acceptable but in today's ESG-sensitive
world, it really doesn't work. Shareholders need to get tough.
There must be consequences for bad behaviour.

In the energy industry, shareholders have gotten tough on
ExxonMobil and Chevron in recent weeks, electing activists to the
board in the case of the former; calling on the company to reduce
Scope 3 emissions in the case of the latter. It's time banks'
shareholders started flexing their muscles to force management to
live up to their pompous claims around culture and diversity. [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to End Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. is seeking to end a shareholder lawsuit that
accuses the firm of giving false assurances about its vigilance in
avoiding conflicts of interest. The case stems from a 2010
Securities and Exchange Commission suit that claimed Goldman
fraudulently sold a mortgage-backed investment, known as Abacus,
that was secretly designed to fail. The SEC suit sent share prices
tumbling.

The case turns on technical class action issues, and arguments in
March suggested the justices were inclined to rule narrowly, giving
Goldman Sachs at most a new chance to argue for dismissal of the
suit. "This seems like an area that, the more I read about it, the
less that we write, the better," Breyer said. [GN]


GRUBHUB INC: Overcharges Food Establishments, Micheli & Shel Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELI & SHEL, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC., GRUBHUB INC. d/b/a SEAMLESS,
SEAMLESS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., UBER EATS,
POSTMATES LLC, and DOORDASH INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04995 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Local Law No. 52 of 2020 by
charging food service establishments, including the Plaintiff and
Class members, in excess of the mandated 15 percent and 5 percent
fee caps specified by the legislation.

The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages in the form
of overcharges and lost profits due to the Defendants' alleged
conduct.

Micheli & Shel, LLC is an Israeli-style bakery, with its principal
place of business located in New York County, New York.

Grubhub Inc., doing business as Seamless, is an online food
ordering company, with its principal place of business located at
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 2100, Chicago, Illinois.

Seamless North America, LLC is an online food ordering service
company based in New York, New York.

Uber Technologies Inc. is a provider of ride hailing services based
in San Francisco, California.

Uber Eats is an American online food ordering and delivery company
based in San Francisco, California.

Postmates LLC is an American quick-commerce and food delivery
service company based in San Francisco, California.

Doordash Inc. is an online food ordering company based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Hamutal G. Lieberman, Esq.
         Lee N. Jacobs, Esq.
         Joe D. Taylor, Esq.
         HELBRAUN & LEVEY LLP
         110 William Street, Ste. 1410
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 219-1193
         Facsimile: (917) 398-8682
         E-mail: hamutal.lieberman@helbraunlevey.com
                 lee.jacobs@helbraunlevey.com
                 joe.taylor@helbraunlevey.com

HEALTH PLAN: Hartley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Plan of San
Joaquin. The case is styled as Richard Hartley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Plan of San
Joaquin, Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2021-0005253 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., June 9, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair
Business Practice."

Health Plan of San Joaquin (HPSJ) -- https://www.hpsj.com/ -- is
the leading Medi-Cal managed care provider in San Joaquin and
Stanislaus countie.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          388 Market St., Ste. 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5316
          Phone: 415-373-1671
          Email: rrivas@zlk.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. in Forsyth Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the motion for
conditional class certification in Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise, has been granted

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
Defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states.

Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
Defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. On September 20, 2017, the
court granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and
administratively closed the case pending resolution of the
arbitration proceedings.

On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single
arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the
arbitration. On December 22, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to (1)
stay the case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded
arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a separate
arbitration demand.

On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. The claims of these sixteen
arbitration named plaintiffs have been resolved. Additional opt-in
plaintiffs were added to the litigation and these claims also were
resolved as part of the arbitration process.

The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third
Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020.
On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On July 9, 2020,
Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 15, 2020,
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint was
denied.

On December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Class Certification. On April 14, 2021, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Class Certification was granted. The conditionally
certified collective action consists of all individuals who had
their employment terminated by Defendants pursuant to a WFR Plan on
or after November 1, 2015, and who were 40 years or older at the
time of such termination. The collective action excludes all
individuals who signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement or an
Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross and
Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.

The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."

The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the individual plaintiffs.

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

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HF HOLDINGS: Court Allows Hancock to Serve Discovery Demands
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Roxanne Hancock, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. HF HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1812 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S.
Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Plaintiff's motion seeking permission to serve
discovery demands.

The Plaintiff filed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") case on March 2, 2021, as a putative class action.
Defendant HF Holdings has failed to answer or appear, and on May 5,
2021, the Plaintiff obtained a certificate of default.

On May 6, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion requesting
expedited discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(d).  Thereafter, Judge Broderick directed the Plaintiff to file
a letter detailing why good cause exists for her request,
especially in light of the fact that the Plaintiff has already
obtained a certificate of default.

On May 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a letter explaining that she
seeks permission to serve discovery demands "in order establish
certain requirements under the FDCPA and Rule 23 including, but not
limited to, the net worth of the Defendant and numerosity (i.e.
based on the number of letters sent to the putative class)."  She
states that she would then be in a position to move for class
certification and for a default judgment.  The Plaintiff explains
that if she is precluded from serving discovery demands, the
Defendant obtains a windfall through defaulting as the Plaintiff
will be forced to move for a default judgment on an individual as
opposed to a class basis, and therefore Plaintiff has good cause
for her request.

Judge Broderick states that the Plaintiff cites to cases outside of
the Circuit where courts have found good cause where a defendant
defaulted and absent limited discovery to obtain information
relevant to the issues of class certification and damages, the
plaintiff cannot pursue his claims in the action.  Since the
defendant has not appeared in the action and is in default, the
plaintiff is effectively precluded from engaging in a Rule 26(f)
conference.

In Sheridan v. Oak St. Mortg., LLC, 244 F.R.D. 520, 521-22 (E.D.
Wis. 2007), a putative class action where defendant was in default
-- facts very similar to those currently before Judge Broderick --
a court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin found good cause for
limited discovery as to class certification and damages.  Because
the Defendant has not appeared in the case, the Plaintiff "is
effectively precluded from engaging in a Rule 26(f) conference,"
and without limited discovery, the Plaintiff will be unable to move
for default on a class-wide basis, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has established good cause for her request.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request is granted to the extent that
she may seek limited discovery from the Defendant to obtain
information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence on the issues of class certification and
damages.  The Judge will be issuing an order referring the case to
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron who will oversee the discovery
process.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the
open motion at docket entry 12.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v2rbrks from Leagle.com.


HL WELDING: Court Allows Filing of First Amended Yanez Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS LOPEZ YANEZ on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HL WELDING, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01789-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the Parties' Stipulation and Proposed
Order Regarding the Filing of a First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Luis Lopez Yanez, on behalf of himself and other current
and former Pipe Fitters, Sheet Metal workers, Electricians,
Machinists, Riggers and similar trades occupation, brings a
collective action for federal overtime pay, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) ("FLSA"), and a class
action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for state wage and hour claims arising out of the failure to pay
overtime premium pay under certain federal and state wage laws by
the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges that from approximately September 2014 to
July 14, 2019, he worked as a Pipefitter and Sheet Metal worker for
Defendant at its facilities in San Diego. He alleges that the
Defendant regularly failed to pay at appropriate pay rates.

On Sept. 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action,
alleging claims for relief for (1) failure to pay overtime wages,
CAL. LAB. CODE Sections 510, 1194; I.W.C. Wage Order 16; (2)
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, CAL. LAB. CODE
Sections 226, 226.3; (3) waiting time penalties, CAL. LAB. CODE
Sections 201-203; (4) unfair competition, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
Section 17200, et seq.; and (5) failure to pay overtime wages, 29
U.S.C. Section 207.

On Dec. 18, 2020, the Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

Before the Court is the Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding
the Filing of a First Amended Complaint.

The Parties advise that they "have reached the terms of a proposed
class, collective, and representative settlement."  They argue that
"in furtherance of the parties' proposed Settlement, the Plaintiff
seeks to amend the Complaint to (1) add additional Plaintiffs
Kayasone Munogkhot and Julio Rubio, (2) clarify the putative class
definition to include additional job titles, and (3) add an
additional claim for Private Attorneys General Act penalties
premised on alleged violations of California Labor Code, as
permitted by California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq."

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when
a party seeks to amend a complaint after a responsive pleading has
been filed, the party may do so as long as (1) the opposing party
consents or (2) the Court grants leave to amend.  Thus, where the
opposing party has consented to the amendment, leave of court is
not required.  As such, Benitez grants their Joint Motion.  He
instructs the Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint on the
docket within five days of the Court's Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ueenh2wm from Leagle.com.


IFM INVESTORS: Named in Colonial Pipeline Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mcarthur, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
IFM Investors has been named in a class action regarding the
Colonial Pipeline, which the industry fund investment house
acquired in 2007 as part of a consortium.

The class action was filed in the United States District Court in
the Northern District of Georgia with Ramon Dickerson as the lead
plaintiff.

Along with IFM, CDPQ Colonial Partners, KKR-Keats Pipeline
Investors, Koch Capital Investments, Shell Midstream Operating were
also named as defendants - with the entities collectively doing
business as the Colonial Pipeline Company.

The Colonial Pipeline supplies the east coast of the US with
petroleum and is a critical piece of infrastructure, transporting
around 2.5 million barrels of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil
and jet fuel per day.

On 7 May 2021, a ransomware cyber attack shut down the Colonial
Pipeline. The entire east coast of the US was deprived of its
normal supply of petroleum.

To secure the pipeline, US$4.4 million worth of bitcoin was paid to
a hacking group which the Federal Bureau of Investigations named
Darkside.

The class action claims that Colonial Pipeline Company failed to
properly secure the infrastructure and left itself open to
potential ransomware attacks.

"The defendant's unlawfully deficient data security has injured
millions of consumers in the form of higher gas prices, and
gasoline shortages that exist/existed, due to Colonial's decision
to effectively turn off the pipeline," the action alleges.

While the pipeline supplies whole airports with jet fuel, the lead
plaintiff in this case is a consumer who paid more for petrol as a
result of the shutdown than he otherwise would have.

Ramon Dickerson purchased petrol on May 7, May 8, May 9 and May 10
in Fayetteville and Greensboro, North Carolina. Each of these
purchases were inflated as a result of the shutdown of the
pipeline, the action alleges.

"For the first time in six years, the average price of a gallon of
gasoline in the United States exceeded [US]$3 - and this was due to
the defendant's failure to adequately protect their IT systems and
then shut down the Colonial Pipeline," the action claims.

IFM Investors was contacted for comment. [GN]

ILLINOIS: Exelon Lobbyist Files Class Suit on Behalf of Lawmakers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McKinney, writing for WBEZChicago, reports that an Exelon
lobbyist is suing on behalf of a former Illinois lawmaker to secure
a big payday for some of the same legislators who may soon vote on
a massive ratepayer-funded bailout of the utility's nuclear
plants.

Springfield lawyer-lobbyist Eric Madiar is representing former
state Rep. Michael Fortner, R-West Chicago, in a newly filed
class-action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court. The case aims to
win back cost-of-living pay raises that lawmakers, including
Fortner, had previously voted to block.

The defendant in the case, Democratic state Comptroller Susana
Mendoza, called the lawsuit a "slap in the face of taxpayers."

If Fortner prevails, taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of
dollars, according to a 2019 analysis by the state Commission on
Government Forecasting and Accountability. That non-partisan fiscal
research arm of the legislature put the cost of foregone
cost-of-living pay raises for lawmakers between 2010 and 2019 at
$14.4 million.

The true cost is likely higher because that estimate didn't take
into account additional stipends legislators get for having
leadership positions or chairing committees, or the long-term costs
associated legislative pensions.

The lawsuit was filed on June 1 and comes at a time when Exelon is
seeking legislative approval to hike rates on consumers to prop up
its financially struggling Dresden, Byron and Braidwood nuclear
plants. Exelon has threatened to shut the plants down if lawmakers
don't approve a bailout.

Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker had brokered a tentative agreement to
allow rate increases of more than $600 million as part of a larger
green-energy package that stalled during the final hours of the
spring legislative session.

Lawmakers are expected back in Springfield -- potentially this
summer -- to approve the energy omnibus.

State lobbying records show that Madiar is a contract lobbyist for
Exelon Generation, one of a dozen lobbying clients he lists for
2021.

Between 2009 and 2014, Madiar was Senate parliamentarian and chief
legal counsel to former Senate President John Cullerton,
D-Chicago.

Madiar did not respond to WBEZ when asked about the optics of his
involvement in the legislative back-pay lawsuit at the same time he
is working on Exelon's behalf at the statehouse.

Exelon indicated it had no problems with Madiar's work on the
legislative pay lawsuit.

"Exelon has no involvement or interest in this case," company
spokesman William Gibbons said. "Our internal policies, which place
significant controls and oversight over the conduct of
third-parties on behalf of the company, do not restrict lawful
activities by those parties on behalf of themselves or their other
clients."

Exelon's subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, has operated under a
cloud since it acknowledged last summer in a deferred prosecution
agreement with U.S. Attorney John Lausch's office that it engaged
in a bribery-tainted lobbying scheme directed at influencing former
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. The company admitted its
goal was to win favorable legislation in Springfield.

Madigan has not been charged, but members of his inner circle have
been, along with other ex-ComEd executives and lobbyists.

Unconstitutional votes or a "scam" against taxpayers?
Fortner's lawsuit against Mendoza follows a ruling in April by a
Cook County judge that two former lawmakers were entitled to
backpay because it was unconstitutional for lawmakers to have
rejected politically sensitive cost-of-living adjustments. Fortner
is now attempting to extend that ruling to all former and current
lawmakers who served for a decade.

"It is my hope that this class action will end further litigation
on this subject once and for all and expedite the payment of
withheld salary to all legislators serving between 2009 and 2019,"
Fortner said in a statement released by Madiar and his co-counsel,
Michael J. Scotti III.

Fortner's lawsuit notes that between 2009 and 2019, the state
legislature passed 10 laws that eliminated annual cost-of-living
adjustments for legislators. Additionally, lawmakers imposed
salary-lowering furlough days on five occasions between 2009 and
2013 that Fortner now alleges also were unconstitutional.

He argues that the Illinois constitution bars "mid-term
manipulation of state legislators' salaries for personal or
political gain." That's even though Fortner himself voted against
the pay raises seven times – actions he now argues violated the
state constitution.

"The hypocrisy is … off-the-scale high and … it's just a slap
in the face of taxpayers," Mendoza said. "What they essentially set
up here years later is like a deferred compensation plan in
secret."

Mendoza's office has calculated that if Fortner's lawsuit prevails,
the existing crop of 177 state lawmakers will see a collective
increase in pay of $2.8 million. And that doesn't take into account
the effect on their legislative pensions. Nor does it account for
pay that would be owed to those no longer in the General Assembly.

A legislative analysis obtained by WBEZ shows the House speaker,
for example, would see a nearly $22,000 annual pay increase if
Fortner's lawsuit prevails.

According to the analysis, a retired House member who served from
2010 to 2019 would be in line for a more than $71,000 windfall if
the lawsuit succeeds. That accounts for changes that would occur to
legislative base pay that now stands at $67,836.

And if that retiree had served in House leadership that entire
time, which comes with its own additional stipend, they would be in
line for nearly $19,000 more, the analysis showed, bringing the
grand total in that circumstance to an unexpected nearly $90,000
pay day.

"I think it's very clear from a right-and-wrong perspective that
these individuals really pulled a scam on taxpayers, and it makes
me sick," Mendoza said, referring to those lawmakers, like Fortner,
who voted to reject COLAs and approve furloughs but now are looking
to cash in from the lawsuit.

Neither Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, nor House Speaker
Emanuel "Chris" Welch, D-Hillside, are weighing in on the merits of
the Fortner case.

"President Harmon has not read the class-action lawsuit. He will
review the court's decision when it is available," spokeswoman Liz
Mitchell said.

And Welch spokeswoman Jaclyn Driscoll declined comment specifically
on the Fortner litigation though noted "current case law says he is
owed that money." [GN]

INDEPENDENT PET: Robinson Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westley Robinson and Luther Cockrill, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Independent Pet
Partners Holdings, LLC, Kriser's Feeding Pets for Life, LLC and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive,, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04602
(C.D. Cal., June 3, 2021), seeks redress for failure to provide
meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and
accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business-related
expenses and resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time
penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of
the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions
Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable
relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Independent Pet Partners Holdings is a Delaware corporation that
sells retail pet products and provides grooming services, among
other things. It purchased Kriser's Feeding Pets for Life in 2017.
Robinson and Cockrill worked for Defendants as non-exempt hourly
and/or commission employees.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net


ISLA VISTA PARKS: Feldt Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isla Vista Parks and
Recreation District. The case is styled as Bruce Feldt, Jacob
Garcia, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons
without houses v. Isla Vista Parks and Recreation District, Case
No. 2:21-cv-04722-CJC-PVC (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Isla Vista Parks and Recreation District -- http://www.ivparks.org/
-- is a Government office in Isla Vista, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se:

          Bruce Feldt
          Phone: (805) 268-8184
          Email: brucefeldt9@gmail.com
          PRO SE



JACK PARKER: Court Certifies Class and Subclass in Thome Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHRYN THOME, MICHAEL WILSON, ROCHELLE BERLINER,
IRWIN REISER, MICHEL PEREZ, INNA LOS, DARIO SOLMAN, JILL MACKENZIE,
CASSANDRA COLON, TAHMENA HAQUE, Plaintiffs v. THE JACK PARKER
CORPORATION, PARKER MANAGEMENT NEW YORK, LLC, PARKER FOREST HILLS
L.P., PARKER YELLOWSTONE L.P., PARKER QUEENS L.P., BPP PARKER
TOWERS PROPERTY OWNER LLC, BLACKSTONE PROPERTY PARTNERS L.P., BEAM
LIVING COMPANY, Defendants, Docket No. 152510/2018, Motion Seq. No.
003 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge W. Franc Perry of the Supreme Court of New
York County granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On March 21, 2018, the action, was commenced as a putative class
action by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all other tenants in the
three buildings located at 104-20, 104-40, and 104-60 Queens
Boulevard ("Parker Towers"), currently living in, or who had lived
in apartments that were deregulated during the period when J-51 tax
benefits were being received by the owners of Parker Towers, except
those tenants who vacated before March 21, 2014 or any tenants
whose occupancy in any such apartment commenced after such J-51 tax
benefits to the building ended.  The Plaintiffs also propose a
sub-class consisting of all current tenants of Parker Towers who
currently reside in an unlawfully deregulated apartment.

According to the operative complaint, BPP Parker Tower Property
Owner LLC is the current owner of the Parker Towers.  Parker Forest
Hills LP, Parker Yellowstone LP, and Parker Queens LP each owned
one of the three towers until November 2018.  Blackstone Property
Partners LP is the current "indirect owner" of the Parker towers,
while The Jack Parker Corp. was the indirect owner until November
2018.  Beam Living Co. is the current property management company,
while Parker Management New York LLC was the management company
until November 2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive rent-stabilized
leases at the time they moved into apartments at the Parker Towers
and were provided with non-rent stabilized renewal leases.  They
further allege that the landlords of Parker Towers received J-51
tax benefits until December 2010 and were thus legally required to
provide J-51 Riders to tenants, detailing the tax credit and
disclosing when it expires.  They contend that because they did not
receive the J-51 Riders, the Plaintiffs and the members of the
putative class are entitled to rent-stabilized leases for as long
as they occupy their apartments.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants' improperly listed
the apartments with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
("DHCR") as being exempt from rent stabilization.  As such, they
allege that they were deprived of a full rental history, entitling
them to utilize the default formula, codified in Rent Stabilization
Code ("RSC") Section 2522.6[b][3], to determine the legal regulated
rent for their apartments.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendants' December 2010 property tax filings for Parker Towers
demonstrate that only 642 of the 1327 units were listed as
rent-stabilized, in violation of the rent-stabilization laws and
the J-51 Program's rules, which require all 1327 units to be
rent-stabilized.

Based on conduct that the Plaintiffs allege demonstrates the
Defendants' intent to circumvent the requirements of New York's
rent regulations at the expense of the Plaintiffs and all tenants
residing in the Parker Towers, the complaint sets forth five causes
of action: 1) on behalf of the class, a violation of RSL Section
26-512 based on the unlawful overcharges; 2) on behalf of the
subclass, a violation of RSL Section 26-512 based on the
Defendants' misrepresentation that the apartments were not subject
to rent stabilization, for which the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that they are entitled to an accurate reformation of their
leases; 3) on behalf of the subclass, a declaratory judgment that
the apartments of the Plaintiffs and members of the subclass are
subject to the RSL and RSC, that any purported deregulation by
Defendants was invalid as a matter of law, and that each are
entitled to a rent stabilized lease in a lease form promulgated by
DHCR; 4) on behalf of the class, unjust enrichment; and 5) on
behalf of the class, attorneys' fees.

Now, the Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the action as a
class action; appointing Plaintiffs Katherine Thome, Michael
Wilson, Rochelle Berliner, Michel Perez, and Dario Solman as the
Lead Plaintiffs and the Class Representatives; and appointing the
law firm of Newman Ferrara LLP as the counsel for the class.

Discussion

CPLR 901(a) sets forth five threshold requirements that must be
satisfied before a class action may be maintained: (i) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members, whether otherwise required
or permitted, is impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class which predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members; (iii) the claims or defenses of
the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class; (iv) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class; and (v) a class
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Plaintiffs argue that they have satisfied each of these five
prerequisites and that courts "regularly and without exception hold
that certification of cases arising out of landlords' violations of
the J-51 Program is proper."

Judge Perry finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity
requirement of CPLR 901[a][1].  The Plaintiffs submit documentation
demonstrating the establishment of numerosity.  As to the
predominance of common issues and typicality, the Judge holds that
the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the predominant legal
questions apply to the entire class: Whether the Defendants
received J-51 benefits, whether the Defendants deregulated
apartments while receiving those benefits, which tenants resided in
those apartments during those time periods, and whether the
Defendants wrongfully charged market rents while accepting J-51
benefits.

As to whether the Plaintiffs would adequately represent the
interests of the Class, Plaintiffs Berliner, Perez, Solman, Thome,
and Wilson have demonstrated that they share a common goal in
ensuring that they are charged the legal maximum rent and that the
Defendants comply with the requirements set forth in the rent
regulation statutory framework.  Likewise, the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that proposed class counsel, Newman Ferrara LLP, has
substantial expertise in class actions and complex commercial
cases, including cases involving deregulation and rent
overcharges.

Lastly, as to superiority, Judge Perry finds that litigating the
claims alleged in the complaint as a class action will conserve
judicial resources by avoiding a multiplicity of lawsuits involving
the same basic facts.  The liability determinations are the same
for the proposed class members; thus, adjudicating the claims
individually would be inefficient.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
have satisfied the final requirement of CPLR 901 [a].

Consideration of the requirements set forth in CPLR 902 does not
compel a different result.  In addition to the prerequisites of
CPLR 901, other factors that a court may consider under CPLR 902 in
deciding whether to certify a class action are: (1) the interest of
the class members in individually controlling the prosecution of
separate actions; (2) the impracticality of prosecuting separate
actions; (3) the extent of any litigation already commenced by
members of the class; (4) the desirability of concentrating the
litigation in a particular forum; and (5) the difficulties likely
encountered in the management of a class action.

Judge Perry explains that most of these considerations in CPLR 902
are implicit in CPLR 901 and his analysis as set forth demonstrates
that the Plaintiffs have met their burden for class certification.

For these reasons, Judge Perry granted the Plaintiffs' motion,
pursuant to CPLR 901, for class certification.

The certified Class consists of all tenants at Parker Towers
living, or who had lived, in apartments deregulated during the
period J-51 tax benefits were being received by the owner of Parker
Towers except that the class will not include (i) any tenants who
vacated before March 21, 2014, or (ii) any tenants whose occupancy
in any such apartment commenced after such J-51 tax benefits at
Parker Towers ended; and it is further

The certified sub-class consists of all current tenants at the
Parker Towers.

Named Plaintiffs Rochelle Berliner, Michel Perez, Dario Solman,
Kathryn Thome, and Michael Wilson are appointed as the Lead
Plaintiffs.

Newman Ferrara LLP is appointed as the counsel for the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Decision + Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2c68nuyc from Leagle.com.


JOHNNY'S TAVERN: Faces Kelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNNY'S TAVERN AND RESTAURANT, INC.;
JOHNNY'S BURGESS GRAND CORPORATION, INC.; and JOSEPH SANTOSUOSSO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01142 (N.D. Ohio, June 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio wage law by failing to pay appropriate
minimum wage and unlawful taking of tips.

Ms. Kelly has been employed by the Defendants from about December
2019 to the present as a tipped employee.

Johnny's Tavern and Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal place of business in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.

Johnny's Burgess Grand Corporation, Inc. is a restaurant owner and
operator, with its principal place of business in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
         Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
         Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Caxton Building
         812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
         Cleveland, OH 44115
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
         E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

JOHNSON CONTROL: PFAS Contamination Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Independent reports that Craig Koller grew up splashing
through backyard creeks and biking gravel trails, sometimes through
the Johnson Control Industries Fire Technology Center. Black smoke
wafted overhead as it conducted controlled burns to test
firefighting foam, producing a dangerous "forever chemical" known
as PFAS.

As a kid growing up in the northern Wisconsin port city of
Marinette, Koller didn't think much of being around the facility or
drinking the city's water.

"How would you have known? There's no signs (at that time) saying,
'Stay out: contamination,' " Koller, 32, said.

But Koller's formative years in Marinette likely altered his life
forever: Right after graduating from high school in 2007, he was
diagnosed with testicular cancer.

The chemicals from the JCI facility contaminated the area's
drinking water. Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a group of
man-made chemicals found in products such as household cleaners,
paint and firefighting foam that are linked to infertility in
women, stunted developmental growth and kidney and testicular
cancers. While the problem has garnered legal and state attention,
residents are forced to reckon with the contamination's impact on
their community -- from using bottled water to cook to suffering
from cancer.

"We've got woods and waterfront and an amazing community," said
Kayla Furton, a current Peshtigo supervisor who bought her
childhood home from her parents five years ago. "What we came to
know is we were moving our family into the middle of a massive
contamination."

People in the area -- including the town of Peshtigo, the subject
of a lawsuit over the contaminated drinking water -- are familiar
with cancer.

Koller said he knows of three other men out of the about 75 in his
high school's graduating class who have had testicular cancer.
Compared to the national average, he and his classmates were
roughly 10 times more likely to have the disease.

"I always made jokes back then about, you know, there's something
in the water in Marinette," he said.

At the end of February, JCI submitted a 2,400-page proposal to
build a groundwater extraction and treatment system to remove
groundwater contamination from affected wells in the area while
also removing tainted soil along its outdoor testing facility.

"Since identifying a municipal water line as the safest and most
permanent solution, (JCI) has done everything we can to move the
proposal forward," the company said in a statement.

JCI's statement said it has submitted plans to the state, started
construction design, solicited public input, committed to funding
technical expertise for Peshtigo and Marinette and plans to
alleviate any economic burden on the parties involved to provide
affected residents with a permanent and sustainable drinking water
solution as quickly as possible.

A lawsuit involving about a thousand Peshtigo residents aims to
provide some restitution to the area's residents. The suit asserts
class action property damage and health claims alongside individual
disease claims totaling $17.5 million.

But not everyone affected is eligible for payouts.

To qualify, residents must have lived in a roughly three-square
mile area in Peshtigo and lived in or owned a residence with a
private well between Jan. 1, 1965, and Dec. 31, 2020.

Despite known contamination in Marinette ditches and wells, Koller,
who now lives in Milwaukee, does not qualify. His father's current
Peshtigo home is roughly a hundred yards from eligibility.

"They somehow managed to cut me out of that," Koller said.

'I'm just lucky to still be here'

Marinette is home to one of the oldest fire suppressor production
companies, Ansul Co. It was founded in 1915 when the company
produced cattle feed and specialty chemicals initially, and then
began making fire suppressors in 1934.

Ansul became a leader in the fire suppressor industry and their
sprinkler systems can be found in ceilings across the world. The
company merged with the publicly traded international conglomerate
Johnson Control Industries in 2016.

The Ansul name and brand now exists as an arm of Tyco Fire
Protection. A statement from the company said it employs about 800
employees in the Marinette region, making it one of the area's
largest employers. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency, foam from firefighting training courses -- the kind of foam
made at JCI's Marinette facility -- held at airports and military
bases across the country is a major contributor to groundwater
contamination. The United States military has been one of JCI's
largest customers for decades.

JCI delayed for years its response to the PFAS contamination,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In 2013, the company
found elevated levels of the chemicals surrounding its facility and
then only acknowledged their spread beyond the Marinette facility
in 2017.

How long the company waited to inform the public surprised Koller,
but the confirmed contamination did not.

"As soon as somebody said it," he said, "I was like, 'Well, that
makes sense.'"

After his cancer diagnosis the summer after high school, Koller's
life involved rounds of chemo and the removal of his left testicle.
The cancer was always in the back of his mind.

During his last year of undergrad, which he spent abroad, he found
another lump eight months into the program. He returned to the
states to have 20% of his remaining testicle removed at Froedtert
and the Medical College of Wisconsin.

"I graduated college cum laude in a hospital bed," he said.

Koller's bouts with cancer weren't over as he had to have his
remaining testicle removed while pursuing a master's degree.

Being outside of the class-action settlement takes a toll on
Koller, who is now cancer-free. He said he has had tens of
thousands of dollars in medical bills, has to inject testosterone
weekly, and had to pay for in vitro fertilization, necessary
because of his banked sperm, when his wife and he decided to grow
their family. He said it's hard to determine fair compensation.

"Who's gonna tell me how much my (testicles) were worth," he said.

Lawsuit aside, Koller said he doesn't know if reconciliation will
actually occur as the class-action suit is not an admission of
fault on JCI's behalf.

"It's just illogical because we know where it came from," he said,
"but they'll never admit it."

Despite his two separate strains of testicular cancer, multiple
orchiectomies and weekly hormone therapy, Koller said he considers
himself a lucky guy.

"I'm just lucky to still be here," he said. "I have a daughter and
a wife. I could just as easily be six feet under taking a long dirt
nap."

Residents tired of waiting for clean water

Since 2017, Jeff and Cheryl Lamont have used bottled water to cook,
drink and clean. After its announcement about the contamination,
JCI continues to provide bottled water and filtration systems to
residents with elevated PFAS levels.

But the Lamonts, like many other residents, want a permanent
solution to the contaminated wells, so they formed Save Our H2O to
advocate for safe drinking water.

Lamont said, in his estimation, the federal response to PFAS
contamination has lagged for years, which has caused smaller
municipalities and communities to take matters into their own
hands.

"The states got sick of waiting, so a lot of states implemented
their own standards because there was no guarantee of when a
federal standard would come in place," he said.

Wisconsin is one of about 30 states that does not regulate PFAS
contamination in drinking water, according to a 2019 tabulation
from the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Pasner, so the group helped
draft the Chemical Level Enforcement and Remediation (CLEAR) Act
introduced in the state legislature in 2019.

It would have required the state to establish standards for PFAS
levels in drinking water and soil as well as require a person who
possesses PFAS to provide proof of financial responsibility for
remediation.

The bill stalled in early 2020 but was reintroduced by Gov. Tony
Evers and other legislators in late April, citing PFAS
contamination in 50 Wisconsin communities, according to WKBT in La
Crosse, Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is currently
developing PFAS standards and the state's Department of Health
Services released recommendations for groundwater of 20 parts per
trillion for PFAS chemicals. Currently the EPA has no legal limit
for PFAS in drinking water, according to Consumer Reports.

A retired hydrologist who spent more than 30 years in the
environmental cleanup industry, Lamont was shocked to come home to
face contamination in his backyard.

"I never really thought it would happen to me," he said.

Another resident surprised by the 2017 contamination announcement
was Furton, the Peshtigo supervisor. Several years ago, she moved
her family into the home her parents purchased in the mid-1980s.

Like many residents in the area, her parents' love of natural
beauty, land and desire for outdoor recreation guided their
decision to live in Peshtigo. Those are the same reasons Furton and
her family came back home.

Furton said her father, a former soil scientist, studied the
groundwater when they purchased their home and continued this
practice for years. Unfortunately, the family, like many in the
region, did not know to test for PFAS contamination until JCI
disclosed the contamination in 2017.

"Now, sadly, he's heartsick about it," she said, "which is just
wrong because he did nothing wrong." [GN]

KELLER DEVELOPMENT: Maurer Sues Over Non-Compliance of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. KELLER DEVELOPMENT,
L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-12247-RMB-SAK (D.N.J., June 8, 2021) brings this complaint
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
mobility impaired individuals against the Defendants seeking for
injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's property
in May 2021, he has encountered repeated exposure to architectural
barriers and other harmful conditions which has endangered his
safety. Allegedly, the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with
respect to this property is a reasonable ground to be subjected to
discrimination against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
mobility impaired individuals because it denied them access to, and
full and equal enjoyments of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings.

Keller Development, L.L.C. owns, leases, leases to, or operates a
place of public accommodation known as Meeting house Square, which
is located at 300 E. Greentree Road, Marlton, New Jersey 08053.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer St.
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Tel: (609) 319-5399
          Fax: (314) 898-0458
          E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com

KINGDOM TRUST: McNally Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Daniel McNally, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Kingdom Trust Company, Case
No. 21-CI-00147 was removed from the Calloway Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on June 9,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00068-TBR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Kingdom Trust Company -- https://www.kingdomtrust.com/ --
operates as a custodian and a non-depository trust company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Rosca, Esq.

               - and -

          Hugh D. Berkson, Esq.
          HERMANN CAHN & SCHNEIDER LLP
          1301 E. Ninth Street, Suite 500
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 781-5515
          Fax: 781-1030

               - and -

          Paul Scarlato, Esq.

               - and -

          William K. Shannon, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42003
          Phone: (270) 442-1422
          Fax: (270) 443-8788
          Email: kevin.shannon@bryantpsc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Licha H. Farah, Jr., Esq.
          Whitney N. Williams, Esq.
          WARD HOCKER & THORNTON, PLLC - Lexington
          333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 422-6000
          Fax: (859) 422-6001
          Email: lfarah@whtlaw.com
                 whitney.williams@whtlaw.com


KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in Miles Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's
Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is currently set for January 24, 2022.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations.

Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff
has until June 9, 2021 to file for class certification.

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Petition for Allowance of Appeal in Gennock Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2021, that the company's petition
for
allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court related to
Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc., is still pending.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts.

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d
102 (3d. Cir. 2019).

Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the
Plaintiffs have standing. However, the court also certified the
standing issue for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company has
filed a petition for allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Kirkland's said "The matter is covered by insurance, and the
Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results
or cash flows."

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


LIL DADDY: Griffin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, RASHEED GRIFFIN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIL DADDY PIZZA, LLC and MATTHEW
MAGEE, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00195-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., June
8, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of wage and
hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from approximately
August 2019 to May 2021 as a delivery driver at the Defendant's
Domino's Store in Ellisville, Mississippi location.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery driver have incurred costs for automobile
expenses because they were required by the Defendants to maintain
and pay for safe, legally-operable and insured automobiles when
delivering pizza and other food items. However, the Defendants
employed a reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a
per-delivery basis that is below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation
of their drivers' automobile expenses. As a result of the
Defendants' flawed reimbursement policy, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated delivery drivers were not paid at the federally
mandated minimum wage, the suit added.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover actual damages for unpaid wages and liquidated damages
equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, as well as pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees and
costs, and disbursement, and other legal an equitable relief as the
Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Lil Daddy Pizza, LLC operates several Domino's Pizza franchise
stores. Matthew Magee is an owner, officer, and director of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Tel: (901) 278-1004
          Fax: (901) 278-3111
          E-mail: billy@donatilaw.com

LM GENERAL: Hinds-Thomas Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cheryl Hinds-Thomas, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. LM General Insurance Company, Case
No. 21SL-CC01932 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on June 9, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00652-JMB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

LM General Insurance Co. -- https://www.libertymutualgroup.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company provides insurance
services for auto, boats, equipment breakdowns, inland marine,
bonds, property, and home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
          ONDER LAW LLC
          110 East Lockwood, 1st Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 963-9000
          Fax: (314) 963-1700
          Email: daesch@onderlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Bravo Schaffer, Esq.
          SCHAFFER AND ASSOCIATES CHTD
          12980 Foster, Suite 370
          Overland Park, KS 66213
          Phone: (913) 345-0100
          Fax: (913) 345-1802
          Email: mschaffer@schafflaw.com


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Purported Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In
re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
7:20-cv-08538, is pending.

On October 13, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Olivier Tremblay, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and
Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-0838.

The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants
allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, which caused the Company's securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Loop's securities between September 24, 2018 and
October 12, 2020.

On October 28, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a second proposed class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Michelle Bazzini, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel
Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-09031-UA.

The allegations in this complaint are similar in nature to those
made in the Tremblay Class Action.

On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York rendered a stipulation and order
granting the consolidation of the two class action lawsuits filed
in New York as In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538. Sakari Johansson and John Jay Cappa
have been appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP have been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel
for the class.

Plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint on February 18,
2021 which alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly
failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, which caused the Company's
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The consolidated amended complaint relies on the October 13, 2020
report published by a third party regarding the Company to support
their allegations.

Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality
PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne,
Canada.


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Proposed Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended February 28, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a proposed securities class action suit in the Superior
Court of Quebec (District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec,
Canada).

On October 13, 2020, the Company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of
their officers and directors were named as defendants in a proposed
securities class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec
(District of Terrebonne, Province of Quebec, Canada), in file no.
700-06-000012-205.

The Application for authorization of a class action and for
authorization to bring an action pursuant to section 225.4 of the
Quebec Securities Act was filed by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and a class of buyers who purchased the company's
securities during the "Class Period". Plaintiff alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the defendants allegedly made false
and/or misleading statements and allegedly failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the Company's technology,
business model, operations and prospects, thus causing the
Company's stock price to be artificially inflated and thereby
causing plaintiff to suffer damages.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages stemming from losses he claims
to have suffered as a result of the foregoing.

On December 13, 2020, the Application was amended in order to add
allegations regarding specific misrepresentations.

Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne,
Canada.


LUMINEX CORPORATION: Finger Sues Over Misleading Merger Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUMINEX CORPORATION, EDWARD A. OGUNRO, KEVIN
M. MCNAMARA, NACHUM SHAMIR, THOMAS W. ERICKSON, DIJUANA K. LEWIS,
STEPHEN L. ECK, KEN SAMET, and JIM D. KEVER, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-04327-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), which recommends Luminex
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of
Luminex by DiaSorin S.p.A. The proxy statement allegedly omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Luminex's financial
advisor Perella Weinberg Partners LP; and (ii) potential conflicts
of interest faced by Perella Weinberg and company insiders.
Luminex's public stockholders, including the Plaintiff, 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.

Luminex Corporation is a biotechnology company with its principal
executive offices located at 12212 Technology Boulevard, Austin,
Texas. [BN]

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

MAD AT S.A.D.: Brothers Slam Alcohol Content in Beverage
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Michael Brothers, Jamiel Brown and Jamie King Colton,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MAD at S.A.D., LLC, Defendants, Case No.
CACE-21-010969 (Fla. Cir., June 3, 2021), seeks relief in this
action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of purchasers of BC
Kombucha beverages, for violations of state consumer fraud acts,
breach of express warranties, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

MAD at S.A.D. operates as "Kombucha 221 B.C." It manufactures,
advertises, sells, distributes and markets "BC Kombucha" beverages.
Defendant has allegedly passed off its "Kombucha" beverages as
non-alcoholic, when, in fact, the beverages contain more than twice
the alcohol allowed for non-alcoholic beverages thus being consumed
by unsuspecting children, pregnant women, persons suffering with
alcohol dependence issues, and a host of other people for whom
alcoholic consumption may pose a grave and immediate safety risk.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 330-5512
      Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
              sbeck@bursor.com

              - and -

      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICON: Jones Files Suit Over Wise Road Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corporation,
Yoong-Joon Kim, Kyo-Hwa Chung, Melvin L. Keating, Ilbok Lee,
Camillo Martino, Gary Tanner and Nader Tavakoli, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-04966 (S.D. N.Y., June 4, 2021), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Magnachip by Wise Road Capital Ltd. through South Dearborn Limited
and Michigan Merger Sub, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside
or awarding rescissory damages in the event Defendants consummate
the merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance
for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Magnachip shareholder
will receive $29.00 in cash for each Magnachip share that they
own.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed concerning the
merger failed to disclose Magnachip's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by the board's financial advisor, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and potential conflicts of interest faced by
J.P. Morgan and company insiders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 860-9158
      Fax: (212) 214-0506
      Email: raymond@bespc.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

MANHATTAN AND BRONX: Romero FLSA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWIN ROMERO, DENISE WELLINGTON, MOSHIN AHMAD, DAWN
M. ALEXANDER, ANDREW AMIR, STANLEY ANDRE, WAI AUNG, GARY BACCHUS,
KHEMRAJ BAICHAN, ANGELA BONNETTE, DAVID CALLISON, DAVID CARTY,
SHAOMING CHANG, NEAL CHERNAKOFF, GERARD P. CORNET, JOHANNY CRUZ,
LESTER CUMBERBATCH, NOEL DALAL, HOWARD G. DALEY, JR., LESTER
DANIELS, GARY DESIMONE, DANIEL DIAZ, RAYMOND DOLAN, DENNIS DONOVAN,
FRANK ESTES, CHARLES M. FRIERSON, ROBERT GONZALEZ, JR., ARKADIY
GRIMBERG, EDWIN GUTIERREZ, DILWAR HASSAM, JUAN HERNANDEZ, OWEN
HEWITT, BENJAMIN JAMES, JANICE JOE, ANDREW JONES, GLADIS JOSEPH,
JOHNNY JUE, TREVOR JULIAN, ALEXANDER KALIKA, ISAAC F. LAPINIG,
GREGORY LAU, FREDERICK LAVEN, MANLUNG LEE, PAMELA LEE, BASIM LOUIS,
ANVAER LUDMILA, JIN QIANG LUO, CARL MAGNO, ALEXANDER MARTIN,
ALEXANDER J. MATLOSZ, RODERICK MCKRIETH, T. MILERSON, WAJHEE
MOHAMMED, TODD J. NELSON, GINO J. OROLOGIO, OSWALDO PALOMINO,
NATASHA PARRIS, JAYSON PAYNE, MICHAEL QUINN, BEVERLYN RICHARDS,
JEANETTE RIVERA, SOPHIA ROBERTS, GERARD MAX ROGER, PAUL ROMANO,
NORMAN RUBI, TERRANCE RUSSELL, JOSE ANTONIO SANTIAGO, DONAVON
SIMONETTE, MAHADEO SINGH, JOHN STANTYOS, DORIAN STEWART, YOLANDA
TABB, GUY TAIEB, DONNA THOMPSON, DEXTER H. TYRRELL, WENDY TZUO,
THEARA WASHINGTON, VERONDERLETTE WHITFIELD, JITHENDRA J. YOGARASA,
SUKKYUN YOON, JIASI ZHU, IRENE THOMAS, RUCHITA ACHARYA, YVETTE
ANDERSON, DARLEEN BELL, JOANNE BROOME, AMINATA CHARLES, LOREN
CHAUHAN, AHMED ALBARBARY, CATHRYN ALVARADO, JOHN BADALAMENTI,
MICHAEL BADALOV, HENRY BARTELS, DWAYNE BEMBRY, MICHAEL BENSON, ALEX
BHUGGOO, CYNTHIA BONNER, TANYA BRAND-JONES, ANGELA BROWN, SHARI S.
BROWN, THOMAS K. BROWN, ALSTON BROWNE, VINCENT CAMPBELL, GERALD
CATALANOTTO, NITHIMA CHAKKRIJRATANA, JAMES T. CHAN, FRIEDA A.
COLSON-SYKES, JOHN WROLF COURTNEY, ANDREA COVELLI, ADA IRIS CUEVAS,
EDWARD ELFIE, RICHARD C. FALLUCCI, JOEY FONG, ASUNCION FRANCISCO,
DOMINICK FRANZESE, WILFRIDO A. GARCIA, ALEXIS GIANG, PETER GIANG,
MAYA GINELLI, DARIEN GOODWIN, JOANNE GRAY, ANGELA GREENIDGE, RENEE
GRIFFITH, RADA GUSHTEROVA, TRACEY HENDERSON, MARLON A. HOLDER, LUAN
HUYNH, STEVEN IANGIRO, JOCELYN JAMES, MALAIKA JAMES, JOSEPH A.
KERINS, NARCISSE KONE, ALEXANDER KOSHY, ROBERTA LEFTENANT, STEVEN
LEONARD, HUNG Y. LEONG, BRONIS LEVIN, STELLA LEVIN, MARYELBY LOPEZ,
BASIM LOUIS, FILIP LUKS, SAMUEL MARTINEZ, BETRICE MCNEILL KANE,
JOHNNY MILES, MINETTE R. MILLINGTON, DIAN U. MOORE, BETTY PARRILLA,
OLIVER PAULINO-HERNANDEZ, KATY L. PEREZ, RONALD PERSAUD, NATASHA
PETERSON, JOHN PISICCHIO, DANNETTE J. PLATO, JEFFERSON PUN, JOHNNY
QUON, PAUL RAMOS, ANGELA RAMSEY, VALERIE RICHARDSON, DION
RODRIGUEZ, MAGDA RODRIGUEZ, JAMES SANON, KAMALENDU SARKAR, LOUIS
SAUSA, VENUS SAVERY, JOHN A. SCARPANTONIO, TIMUR SHAKHIDOV, DALE
SHAW, JAMES SIT, CHRISTOPHER M. STERBENZ, ROSALEE STODDART, CYNTHIA
STOKES-HERNANDEZ, ADA TANG, FRANKLIN TANG, KATHY M. THOMAS, KENNY
HON TOO, DEXTER TYRELL, KONRAD WALUSZKO, KAREN WATSON, CAROL
WILLIAMS, LINDA WILLIAMS, CHUK BO WONG, YUK LING WONG, XIAOMENG WU,
MICHELLE YORKE, ANNA KOZIY, NEVILLE LEWIN, JANET PARSONS, FIONE
ROBE, JOHN SCIOTTO, ROBERT FELDMAN, RODNEY GAINES, JOSHUA GAYLE,
PATTI PASQUALE, and THOMAS VARUGHESE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE
TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, MTA HEADQUARTERS a/k/a MTA INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, and METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Case No.
154362/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04951 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages and the Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the New York State Constitution for unequal pay.

Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA)
is a subsidiary of the New York City Transit Authority located in
New York, New York.

MTA Headquarters a/k/a MTA Information Technology is a part of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York, New York.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation responsible for public transportation in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
          
         Steven D. Hurd, Esq.
         Joshua S. Fox, Esq.
         PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
         Eleven Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 969-3000
         E-mail: shurd@proskauer.com
                 jfox@proskauer.com

MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Mingo County Commission Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as The County Commission of Mingo County, The Town
of Kermit, West Virginia, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00079, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 9, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04385-CRB to the
proceeding.

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

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Truman Chafin, Esq.
          Letitia Neese Chafin, Esq.
          THE CHAFIN LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 1799
          Williamson, WV 25661
          Phone: (304) 235-2221
          Fax: (304) 235-2777
          Email: truman@thechafinlawfirm.com
                 tish@thechafinlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Russo, Esq.
          John C. Palmer, IV, Esq.
          Keith J. George, Esq.
          Marisa Brunetti, Esq.
          ROBINSON & McELWEE
          ROBINSON & McELWEE
          P. O. Box 1791
          Charleston, WV 25326-1791
          Phone: (304) 344-5800
          Fax: (304) 344-9566
          Email: dsr@ramlaw.com
                 kg@ramlaw.com
                 mrb@ramlaw.com


MEDINA MANAGEMENT: Viar Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
GINA VIAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDINA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a MEDINA
AUTO MALL, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01138 (N.D. Ohio, June 6,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted multiple
pre-recorded voice messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 6628 on or about January 22, 2021 and January 28,
2021 in an attempt to encourage the Plaintiff to purchase, rent, or
invest in property, goods, or services of the Defendant. The
Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the Defendant with her
express written consent to be contacted using pre-recorded messages
on her cellular telephone number.

Due to the Defendant's alleged unsolicited prerecorded messages,
the Plaintiff was harm in the form of invasion of privacy,
aggravation, and annoyance. Thus, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an
injunction prohibiting the Defendant from transmitting artificial
or pre-recorded voice messages to telephone without the prior
express consent of the called party, as well as actual, statutory,
and/or trebled statutory damages, and other relief as the Court
deems reasonable and just.

Medina Management Company, LLC d/b/a Medina Auto Mall is a company
that engaged in car dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MEDNAX SERVICES: Customer Data Breach Litigation Moved to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The cases styled RUMELY, ET AL. v. MEDNAX, INC., ET AL., Case No.
3:21−00152; DAVIS v. MEDNAX SERVICES, INC. and COHEN v. MEDNAX
SERVICES, INC., Case Nos. 0:21−60347 and 1:21−20375; A.W. v.
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF KANSAS, P.C., Case No. 4:21−00119; and
NIELSEN, ET AL. v. MEDNAX, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:21−00500,
were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, and the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, respectively, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on June 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-md-02994-RAR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of state
privacy and consumer protection laws, negligence, and/or breach of
contract for their failure to implement appropriate measures to
protect the Plaintiffs' personal information following a data
breach on Mednax's email system in June 2020, failure to take steps
to mitigate the consequences of the breach or prevent additional
breaches, and failure to provide prompt notice of the breach to
affected persons.

Mednax, Inc. is an American physician-led national medical group,
headquartered in Sunrise, Florida.

Mednax Services, Inc. is a provider of physician services,
headquartered in Sunrise, Florida.

Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C. is a provider of neonatal
intensive care units across Kansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
          
         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
         5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Suite 305
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

                - and –

         John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 275-5272
         Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
         E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

                - and –

         Ryan Dennis Maxey, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
         625 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 100
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 318-5700
         Facsimile: (813) 318-5900
         E-mail: rmaxey@forthepeople.com

                - and –

         Michael Anderson Berry, Esq.
         ARNOLD LAW FIRM
         865 Howe Avenue
         Sacramento, CA 95825
         Telephone: (916) 777-7777
         E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

                - and –

         Robert J. Kuntz, Esq.
         DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO & WATTS-FITZGERALD LLP
         2800 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 374-8200
         Facsimile: (305) 374-8208
         E-mail: rkuntz@devinegoodman.com

                - and –

         Bibianne Uychinco Fell, Esq.
         FELL LAW, PC
         11956 Bernardo Plaza Drive Suite 531
         San Diego, CA 92128
         Telephone: (858) 201-3960
         E-mail: Bibi@Fellfirm.com

                - and –

         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
         2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
         Larkspur, CA 94939
         Telephone: (415) 477-6700
         Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
         E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

                - and –

         William B. Federman, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 N Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Rucker Hits Tip Sharing, Seeks Min. Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taquayla Rucker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Milwaukee Entertainment, LLC and Doe
Defendants 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00692 (E.D. Wisc., June
3, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip
credit, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Heart Breakers," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where Rucker
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


MULTIPLAN CORP: Kong Slams Non-disclosure of Poor Financial Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Kong, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Multiplan Corporation (formerly Churchill Capital
Corp. III), Michael Klein, Jay Taragin, Mark Klein, Michael Eck,
Glenn R. August, Paul Galant, Jeremy Paul Abson, Malcolm S.
McDermid, Karen G. Mills, Bonnie Jonas, Mark Tabak, David Redmond,
M. Klein and Company, Churchill Sponsor III, LLC and Klein Group
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03186 (E.D. N.Y., June 4, 2021),
seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose
acquisition vehicle that merged with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost
specialist. Multiplan's Class A common shares trade in New York on
the New York Stock Exchange.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose that
MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and
revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's
largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of
the company's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022. It
also failed to declare that sales and revenue declines were due to
a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and
increased competition. MultiPlan was facing significant pricing
pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce
its take rate with the price and quality of its services and
balanced billing practices, causing the company to cut its take
rate by up to half in some cases. Kong alleges that MultiPlan was
set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines,
increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics.

Steve Kong purchased Churchill III securities, and suffered
damages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vannest WVCCPA Suit Goes to N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAUREEN VANNEST (f/k/a DILORETI), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 21-C-63, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on June 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00086-JPB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (WVCCPA) and for breach of
contract under state law, based upon the allegedly improper
practice of accepting mortgage payments by telephone or interactive
voice recognition and charging a convenience fee to consumers
located in West Virginia, who have had their mortgage loans
serviced or sub-serviced by Nationstar.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, is a
mortgage services provider based in Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         John C. Lynch, Esq.
         Jason E. Manning, Esq.
         Megan E. Burns, Esq.
         TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
         222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
         Virginia Beach, VA 23462
         Telephone: (757) 687-7765
         Facsimile: (757) 687-1504
         E-mail: john.lynch@troutman.com
                 jason.manning@troutman.com
                 megan.burns@troutman.com

NCINO INC: Putative Class Action in North Carolina Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
NCino, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On March 12, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

The sole class representative in the suit is one individual
alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among
the Company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture LLC not to
solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2.

The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.


The complaint does not allege any specific damages.

nCino said, "Although there can be no assurance with respect to the
outcome of this matter, the Company believes the alleged claims are
not meritorious and intends to defend itself vigorously."

nCino, Inc. is a leading global provider of cloud-based software
for financial institutions. The company empowers banks and credit
unions with the technology they need to meet ever-changing client
expectations and regulatory requirements, gain increased visibility
into their operations and performance, replace legacy systems, and
operate digitally and more competitively. The company is based in
Wilmington, North Carolina.


NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid for Leave to Amend Pirone's Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Frank Pirone, Plaintiff v. The City of New York;
Police Officer Jay Rivera, Shield #3882; Police Officer Kyle
Stanley, Shield #3809, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-3070 (ERK) (RER)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Edward K. Korman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend complaint and denied as moot his motions to certify
a class and sever his individual claims.

Plaintiff Pirone alleges that New York police officer Jay Rivera
used excessive force (while arresting him for using illicit drugs
in a playground) by punching him in the face three times and
fracturing his jaw.  The Plaintiff likewise alleges that Rivera's
partner, Kyle Stanley, unlawfully failed to intervene, and that the
New York Police Department (NYPD) failed to properly supervise the
officers.  Finally, he contends that the NYPD unlawfully handcuffed
him during his five-day hospitalization, based on a policy
requiring that all hospitalized suspects be handcuffed.

Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all of these claims, finding that a reasonable
jury could rule in the Plaintiff's favor.

The Plaintiff now moves for leave to amend his complaint and to
certify a class of all hospitalized prisoners subject to the
handcuffing policy.  He also asks that this class claim be severed
from the other claims he asserts in his individual capacity.

First, Judge Korman finds that the hour is late for the Plaintiff
to seek to transform the case into a class action.  The case was
originally filed as a pro se matter on May 18, 2017, and the
counsel first appeared for the Plaintiff on Jan. 10, 2018.  Fact
discovery was certified closed on Jan. 17, 2019, and Judge Brodie
denied summary judgment on March 31, 2020.  He did not file the
instant motion until May 7, 2020, more than a year after the close
of fact discovery, more than two years after his counsel first
appeared, and nearly three years after he commenced the action.
The Plaintiff's motion to amend comes after "an inordinate delay,
and no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay."

Second, transforming the action into class litigation at this stage
would cause the Defendants undue prejudice.  Judge Korman says an
individual Section 1983 suit and a class action are very different
beasts and transmuting one into the other at this stage would
fundamentally transform the litigation in a manner burdensome to
defendants.  A class action proceeding is more costly, more
time-consuming, and exposes defendants to more substantial
recoveries than an individual Section 1983 suit.  In addition, the
Defendants might have made different choices about trial management
issues like preparation, discovery, and summary judgment had they
known that the Plaintiff intended to move for class certification.
An order granting or denying class action certification also opens
the possibility of an interlocutory appeal, raising the specter of
yet further delay before the merits can be reached.

Finally, the Plaintiff would experience little prejudice from
denial of his motion for leave to amend.  Indeed, denial of leave
to amend may well benefit the Plaintiff.  He will be able to
prosecute his excessive force claim, which he acknowledges is
"substantially more valuable," together with his individual Monell
claim, potentially bringing both to a speedier resolution than
would be possible were class certification and severance granted.

For these reasons, Judge Korman denied the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint.  Accordingly, his motions to certify
a class and sever his individual claims are denied as moot.  The
Order expresses no view on the merits of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48swybdf from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Denies Tuition Refunds After Campus Closure, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NELCY MABEL GARCIA DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05005 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of New York General Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's decision not to issue
appropriate refunds or adjustments for the Spring 2020 semester
after cancelling in-person classes and changing all classes to an
online/remote format, closing most campus buildings, and requiring
all students to leave campus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a
result, the Plaintiff and Class members are deprived from
recognizing the benefits of enrollment in an on-campus degree
program, access to campus facilities, student activities, and other
benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid
fees and tuition, the suit alleges.

New York University is a tax-exempt not-for-profit entity with a
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Edward Toptani, Esq.
         TOPTANI LAW PLLC
         375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 699-8930
         E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com

               - and –

         Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
         Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
         Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
         Jarrett W. Withrow, Esq.
         ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
         32 Ann Street
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 614-8888
         E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com
                 blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 jarrett@akimlawfirm.com

NEW YORK: Fails to Properly Pay Home Care Workers, Franck Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS FRANCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04955 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay wages
promptly, failure to pay the entire earned compensation under the
wage parity law, failure to compensate for all hours worked,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay for
travel time, unjust enrichment, and wage theft prevention act
violations.

Mr. Franck was employed by the Defendant as a home care worker in
Manhattan and Brooklyn locations in New York from around January
2019 until around June 2019.

New York Health Care Inc. is a home health care company with its
headquarters located at 33 West Hawthorne Ave., 3rd Floor, Valley
Stream, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
         Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
         WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
         18 Half Mile Road
         Armonk, NY 10504
         Telephone: (914) 319-9945
         Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
         E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
                 tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com

                - and –

         Andrey Belenky, Esq.
         Dmitry Kheyfits, Esq.
         KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP
         80 Broad Street, 5th FL
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-5399
         Facsimile: (212) 203-6445
         E-mail: abelenky@kblit.com
                 dkheyfits@kblit.com

NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Salomon Weiss, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NorthStar
Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03258 (E.D.N.Y., June 9,
2021).

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

The Northstar Companies -- https://www.gotonls.com/ -- provides a
full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NUTANIX INC: California Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated purported class action suit filed in the Northern
District of California.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The action was brought on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while
providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the
lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, again naming the
company and two of its officers as defendants.

The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many
of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and
again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current
Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 11, 2020, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the Current Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff
adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements
regarding the company's new customer growth and sales productivity.


On January 27, 2021, lead plaintiff, Shimon Hedvat, filed a motion
to (i) withdraw as lead plaintiff and (ii) substitute proposed new
lead plaintiffs and approve their appointment of a new co-lead
counsel.

On March 1, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to
withdraw as lead plaintiff but denied without prejudice his motion
to substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs. The court also reopened
the lead plaintiff selection process. The court has not yet
selected a new lead plaintiff.

On May 28, 2021, one of the movants for lead plaintiff, John P.
Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002,
filed a separate class action complaint in the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of persons or entities who
transacted in publicly traded call options and/or put options of
Nutanix during the period from November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019,
containing allegations substantively the same as those alleged in
the Current Complaint.

The litigation is still in early stages, and we plan to continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations and we are not able to
determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current
Complaint.

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


OLAM SPICES: Hearing on Prelim. Approval of Beltran Deal Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BELTRAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLAM SPICES AND
VEGETABLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01676-NONE-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California vacated the June 2, 2021
hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of a class action
and collective action settlement.

Currently, before the Court is a motion for preliminary approval of
a class action and collective action settlement, which has been
referred by the district judge for the issuance of findings and
recommendations.  A hearing on the motion was set for June 2, 2021,
in Courtroom 9.

Judge Boone, having reviewed the record, finds the matter suitable
for decision without oral argument.  Accordingly, the hearing set
on June 2, 2021, is vacated and the parties are not required to
appear at that time.

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


OREGON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Parkerson v. ODOC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM J. PARKERSON et al., Plaintiffs v. KATE BROWN
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00214-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon denies Mr. Parkerson's motion for appointment of
counsel and motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Parkerson, a self-represented litigant in the custody of
the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC"), filed the civil
rights action on behalf of himself and six other adults in custody.
The matter comes before the Court on Parkerson's motion for
appointment of counsel and motion for class certification.

Mr. Parkerson is currently housed at the Two Rivers Correctional
Institution.  On Feb. 9, 2021, Parkerson filed the action, alleging
that ODOC knowingly exposed the Plaintiffs to COVID-19 and that
ODOC's failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Plaintiffs' Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Mr. Parkerson, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, filed a motion to
certify the action as a class action under FED. R. CIV. P. 23.
However, a self-represented plaintiff may not represent other
plaintiffs in litigation.  Accordingly, Judge Beckerman denies
Parkerson's motion for class certification.

Mr. Parkerson also filed a motion for appointment of counsel.

At this juncture, Judge Beckerman holds that the case does not
present exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of
counsel.  Accordingly, she denies Parkerson's motion for
appointment of counsel.

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


PAPA SOUTH: Delivery Drivers Seek Settlement Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GARRETT,
Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Persons, v. PAPA
SOUTH, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, and F.H. WIYGUL, III, Case No.
1:19-cv-00174-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. finally certifying pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23 for settlement purposes the following class:

      "All persons who worked as a delivery driver for Papa South,

      LLC between July 23, 2017, through October 23, 2020;"

   2. finally certifying the Settlement Class as a collective
      action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

      Act ("FLSA");

   3. finally certifying the Settlement Class as a class action,
      under Mississippi state law, pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23;

   4. granting final approval of the Agreement, adjudging its terms

      to be fair, reasonable and adequate and directing
      consummation of its terms and provisions;

   5. finding that the Notice Plan was executed in a manner that
      ensured that Class Members' due process rights were amply
      protected, and that the requirements of Rule 23(e)(1)(B) have

      been satisfied;

   6. approving distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, as defined

      in the Agreement, to the Participating Class Members (as
      defined by the Agreement);

   7. approving and awarding a service payment in the amount of
      $5,000.00 to the Class Representative, Nathan Garrett;

   8. approving payment of the actual costs of the Settlement
      Claims Administrator;

   9. approving and awarding Attorneys’ Fees to Class Counsel and

      reimbursement of Counsel's actual costs and litigation
      expenses;

  10. permanently enjoining all Settlement Class Members from
      prosecuting against the Defendants and the Released Parties
      any and all of the Settlement Class Members' Released
Claims;

  11. permanently enjoining the Class Representative from
      prosecuting against the Defendants and the Released Parties
      any and all of the Class Representative's Released Claims;
      and

  12. entering a judgment dismissing this case with prejudice in
      accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

Papa South, L.L.C., which also operates under the name Papa John's,
is located in Tupelo, Mississippi. This organization primarily
operates in the pizzeria service restaurants industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 8,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RJVXwP
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and Settlement Class, are:

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel P. Hull, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
                  danielh@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Van D. Turner, Jr., Esq.
          BRUCE TURNER, PLLC
          2650 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 2140A
          Memphis, TN 38118
          E-mail: vturner@bruceturnerlaw.net

PEREG NATURAL: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pereg Natural Foods
Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Pereg Natural Foods Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05117 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Pereg Natural Foods -- https://www.pereg-gourmet.com/ -- strives to
provide our customers with the best spices and grains the world has
to offer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PHYTON TALENT: Klein Sues Over QA Analysts' Unpaid OT, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
TZVI KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PHYTON TALENT ADVISORS LLC and SOCIETE GENERALE
AMERICAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-12171 (D.N.J., June 4, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was recruited by Linium, now Phyton, in or about June
2017 for a position as KYC QA Analyst (Know Your Customer Quality
Assurance Analyst) at SocGen to primarily review negative news
about SocGen's clients to detect possible money laundering and/or
other illegal activity.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff typically worked at least
50 hours per week and 10 hours on a typical weekday. However, the
Defendants did not pay him his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff
also alleges the Defendant SocGen of discrimination. Although he
was held out as the senior member of the team by SocGen and renewed
his contract for 2020, Defendant SocGen did not offer him any
direct employment or a promotion in title given the high quality of
his work and the increased reliance on him for substantive and
supervisory work. In addition, the Defendants' termination of
Plaintiff constitutes illegal retaliation for the Plaintiff's
protected activity under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee
Protection Act (CEPA), the suit alleges.

Phyton Talent is a talent recruitment agency that provides
recruiting and payroll services to companies including Societe
Generale, who manages the American affairs of the multinational
French bank Societe Generale. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212) 688-5640
          Fax: (212) 981-9587

PLAZA MOTORS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Motors of
Brooklyn, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Plaza Motors of
Brooklyn, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05102 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Plaza Motors of Brooklyn, Inc. -- https://www.plazaautomall.com/ --
retails automobiles. The Company offers sale of new and used
automobiles and their parts and services.[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 SCIENCES: Murphy Files Suit Over ICON Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
John Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PRA Health Sciences, Inc. and the members
of its Board of Directors, Colin Shannon, Jeffrey T. Barber,
Alexander G. Dickinson, Linda S. Grais, James C. Momtazee, Glenn D.
Stettin And Matthew P. Young, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01064
(S.D. Cal., June 4, 2021), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger of PRA Health to ICON PLC
through ICON's subsidiaries ICON US Holdings Inc. and Indigo Merger
Sub, Inc., 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 PRA Health
stockholder will receive $80 in cash, and 0.4125 shares of ICON
common stock for each share of PRA Health common stock they own.

According to the complaint, the proxy statement filed concerning
the merger fails to disclose PRA Health's and ICON's financial
projections and the financial analyses performed by the PRA
Health's financial advisors, BofA Securities Inc. and UBS
Securities LLC; the potential conflicts of interest faced by BofA
and UBS; as well as the background leading to the merger.

PRA Health is a global contract research organization providing
outsourced clinical development and data solution services to the
biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      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


PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Loftus Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Progressive
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as William Loftus,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Progressive Corporation, Rock Advertising Consultants LLC, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-04720
(C.D. Cal., June 9, 2021).

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

The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is
an American insurance company, one of the largest providers of car
insurance in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROMPT NURSING: Bid to Decertify Class in Paguirigan Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSE ANN PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT
AGENCY LLC d/b/a/SENTOSA SERVICES, SENTOSACARE LLC, SENTOSA NURSING
RECRUITMENT AGENCY, BENJAMIN LANDA, BENT PHILIPSON, BERISH
RUBENSTEIN a/k/a BARRY RUBENSTEIN, FRANCIS LUYUN, GOLDEN GATE
REHABILITATION & HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC, and SPRING CREEK
REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1302
(NG) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nina Gershon of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
        for summary judgment;

   (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
        Court's ruling on Defendant Philipson's liability for
        breach of contract; and

  (iii) denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the class.

The class action is brought by Plaintiff Paguirigan, on behalf of
herself and a class of similarly situated Filipino nurses, against
the Defendants, alleging the Defendants are liable for violations
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"), 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1589, et seq., and Defendants Prompt Nursing and
Rubenstein are liable for breach of contract.

The class is comprised of "all nurses who were recruited by the
Defendants in the Philippines and were employed by the Defendants
in the United States at any time since Dec. 23, 2008."  The class
members signed employment contracts that were assigned to staffing
agency Prompt Nursing after the nurses arrived in the United
States.  The contracts entitled each class member to a base salary
in accordance with the prevailing wage, as determined by the
National Prevailing Wage and Helpdesk Center ("NPWC") as of his or
her commencement date.  The contracts also included a liquidated
damages provision that required class members to pay and submit a
confession of judgment for $25,000 if they quit during their first
year of employment.

On Sept. 24, 2019, Judge Gershon granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment as to liability only.  Specifically, she found
Prompt Nursing liable for breach of contract for failing to pay the
class members a base salary in accordance with the NPWC prevailing
wage as of their commencement date.  She granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to pierce Prompt Nursing's corporate veil only to reach
Rubenstein, owner of Prompt Nursing, and found that Philipson and
Landa did not sufficiently dominate Prompt Nursing to be held
liable as equitable owners of the company.

The Judge held all the Defendants liable for violating the TVPA, in
that Prompt Nursing obtained labor through threats of serious
financial harm pursuant to the liquidated damages provision, in
violation of TVPA Section 1589(a), and that the remaining
defendants participated in and benefitted from the venture, in
violation of TVPA Section 1589(b).  All the Defendants were also
found liable pursuant to TVPA Section 1590(a) for recruiting,
providing, or obtaining persons for labor in violation of the TVPA,
and under TVPA Section 1594(b) for conspiracy to violate TVPA
SectionSection 1589 and 1590.

Finally, the Judge declared the liquidated damages provisions in
the employment contracts to be unenforceable penalties and enjoined
defendants from attempting or threatening to enforce them. On
interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the declaratory
judgment and injunction orders and declined to take pendent
jurisdiction over the other issues raised by the Defendants.

Following the decision on liability, the parties worked, together
with the Court, to attempt to resolve issues related to damages.
The parties appeared twice before Judge Gershon and conferred over
several months in an effort to reach agreement as to the
assumptions and mathematical calculations underlying each party's
damages submission.  Over the course of these discussions, the
Plaintiffs agreed, among other things, to eliminate 40 individuals
from the class when the parties realized that there was no
contractual basis to award them damages as their contracts
specified the wage rate instead of referring to a prevailing wage.
See Status Report filed June 8, 2020.  With respect to the 133
class members, the parties agreed on their commencement dates,
locations of their first assignments, the annual prevailing wage
rate in effect for Registered Nurses in the geographic area when
they started working, and the regular compensation actually paid to
each class member.

The Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on damages for the
class.  On the breach of contract claim, the Plaintiffs seek an
award of compensatory damages in the amount of $1,559,099.79, plus
pre-judgment interest at 9% per annum, jointly and severally
against Prompt Nursing, Rubenstein, and Philipson, as they also
move for reconsideration of the portion of my decision on summary
judgment declining to hold Philipson liable for breach of contract.
On the TVPA claim, the Plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory
damages in the amount of $1,559,099.79, plus interest at the
federal rate, as well as punitive damages in the amount of
$1,559,099.79, jointly and severally against each Defendant.

The Defendants oppose the award of any compensatory damages.  They
also argue that the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages must
be evaluated by a jury and therefore should be denied on summary
judgment.  Finally, the Defendants move to decertify the class.

Discussion

A. Compensatory Damages

There is no genuine dispute over the material payroll data relevant
to the determination of compensatory damages: namely, the date each
class member began employment, the annual prevailing wages that
should have been paid, and the regular wages paid to each class
member.  Rather, the parties disagree on the principles that
underlie each sides' computations.  The Plaintiffs calculate salary
underpayments by subtracting the total regular wages actually paid
to a class member in a year (the sum of compensation received each
pay period over 12 months) from the annual prevailing wage for each
geographic area in which the class member worked as of the
commencement date.  For those class members who worked fewer than
12 months in the year, the annual prevailing wage is calculated pro
rata.

The Defendants, by contrast, argue that use of the "proper
methodology" -- including the resolution of four main issues --
demonstrates that the class did not suffer any damages.  This is
because, according to them, the class is entitled to less
compensation than the Plaintiffs believe, and the Defendants are
entitled to offset damages with "overpayments."

The four issues, legal in nature, are as follows: (1) whether the
base salary should be calculated according to a 35-hour or 40-hour
workweek; (2) whether base salary underpayments should be offset by
overtime payments; (3) whether the Defendants are entitled to make
deductions from compensation for days on which class members did
not work; and (4) whether class members are foreclosed from
recovering damages because they did not previously provide Prompt
Nursing with an individual notice of breach.

First, Judge Gershon opines that the annual prevailing wage will be
calculated according to a 40-hour work week, as appears in the
Plaintiffs' calculations.  She says the Defendants' arguments as to
why the hourly wage should be calculated using a 35-hour workweek
are unpersuasive.  The prevailing wage regulations do not provide
for the conversion of an hourly rate to an annual salary based on
anything less than a 40-hour workweek.  Also, although the
Defendants argue that an employer may choose "either the
government's hourly or annual prevailing wage rate," the Judge
previously found that the plain language of the contract entitles
class members to a base salary, not an hourly wage.

Second, the Judge holds that the Defendants may not use overtime
payments to offset damages owed to the class members.  The
Defendants have raised no legal basis (or issue of fact) to support
their entitlement to recoup overtime payments made to the class
members.  Even if the class members were exempt from overtime
regulations, the Judge holds the Defendants were free to contract
to pay them overtime without the class members losing their
salaried status.  An employer may provide an exempt employee with
additional compensation without losing the exemption or violating
the salary basis requirement, if the employment arrangement also
includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly-required amount
paid on a salary basis.  Moreover, providing salaried employees
with additional compensation for overtime hours specifically as an
incentive to take on additional work has been frequently upheld as
a legitimate business decision.

Third, the Defendants are not entitled to deduct compensation from
class members for days on which they did not work.  The Judge finds
that assuming without deciding that the class members qualify as
exempt employees, the Defendants have not met their burden to show
that any alleged absences were due to "personal reasons, other than
sickness or disability."  They have provided no evidence as to the
reasons for the alleged missed days.  Indeed, they have not even
provided evidence to show that days not worked resulted from the
class members' choice, not Prompt Nursing's decision not to offer
class members shifts.

Fourth, the Plaintiffs are not precluded from bringing a claim for
breach of contract based upon a lack of prior notice as to the
breach.  The Judge finds nothing in the contract limits, waives, or
places any specific conditions upon a claim to collect damages for
breach of contract or the violation of any laws.  Further, she is
unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument that they have been
prejudiced by the lack of notice.

Fifth, the Judge holds that there are no genuine issues of material
fact with respect to the class members' dates of employment, the
wages paid to each class member, or the annual prevailing wages.
Accordingly, she adopts the Plaintiffs' calculations for breach of
contract damages in full.  The class members are entitled to
$1,559,099.79, jointly and severally against Prompt Nursing and
Rubenstein.  In addition, the class members are entitled to recover
pre-judgment interest at a rate of 9% per year.  Because
pre-judgment interest may be calculated from "the earliest
ascertainable date the cause of action existed," it will start to
accrue on the last day of each 12-month period of employment (or
part thereof) for which the class member was underpaid.

Lastly, the class members may recover compensatory damages for
breach of contract or violations of the TVPA, but not both, the
Judge holds.  She finds that the class members are entitled to
compensatory damages totaling $1,559,099.79, plus pre-judgment
interest at the federal rate, jointly and severally against all the
Defendants under the TVPA.  The Plaintiffs have acknowledged that
the class cannot recover twice for the same harm.

B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration as to Defendant
Philipson's Liability for Breach of Contract

The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the denial of their
application to pierce the corporate veil with respect to Defendant
Philipson.  Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a motion for
reconsideration will be served within 14 days of the court's
determination of the original motion and will set forth matters or
controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has
overlooked.  The Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was made
more than a year after the Sept. 24, 2019 summary judgment decision
on liability, and it does not purport to meet the standard for such
a motion.  The Plaintiffs instead rely on alleged new evidence --
specifically, checks made out to Philipson from the year 2007 by
Marx Erwin Ong, allegedly as part of the $25,000 contract
termination fee -- going to one of the factors in determining
whether to pierce the corporate veil.  On reply, they note that
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows the court to alter a
prior decision before entry of judgment.

Upon review, Judge Gershon declines, at this late date, to reopen
the summary judgment motion.

C. Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class is Denied

The Defendants move to decertify the class.  They claim that,
because some class members (not including Paguirigan) are subject
to a claim from Prompt Nursing for recovery of overtime payments,
Paguirigan is no longer an adequate class representative, and the
Rule 23 requirements of commonality and typicality no longer
exist.

While a court may decertify a class before final judgment, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(c), it "may not disturb its prior findings absent
some significant intervening event or a showing of compelling
reasons to reexamine the question."  In the case, Judge Gerson has
already found the basis for the Defendants' untimely application to
decertify the class -- their claim that they are entitled to offset
damages with overtime payments -- meritless.  Accordingly, the
Judge denied the Dfendants' motion to decertify the class.

D. Plaintiffs are Not Entitled to Punitive Damages on Summary
Judgment

The Plaintiffs seek $1,559,099.79 in punitive damages for violation
of the TVPA on the basis that the Defendants "participated in a
decade-long campaign to keep Filipino nurses in a state of fear."
The Defendants, who demanded a jury trial in their answer, assert
that the Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages must be presented
to a jury.

The Judge agrees that the Defendants are entitled to a jury trial.

Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Gerson granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to damages to the extent that she
finds that the class members are entitled to compensatory damages
for breach of contract in the amount of $1,559,099.79, plus
pre-judgment interest at 9% per annum, jointly and severally
against Prompt Nursing and Rubenstien, and for violations of the
TVPA in the amount of $1,559,099.79, plus interest at the federal
rate, jointly and severally against all defendants.  She denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to the extent that they
seek summary judgment on punitive damages, as there remain material
questions of fact to be decided by a jury.

The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
court's ruling on Defendant Philipson's liability for breach of
contract, as well as the Defendants' motion to decertify the
class.

The case is respectfully referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Cheryl
L. Pollak for discussions with the parties regarding resolution of
the open issue as to punitive damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26w4ts3f from Leagle.com.


PROSUPPS USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProSupps USA LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ProSupps USA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05110
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

ProSupps -- https://www.prosupps.com/ -- is a world leader in
sports nutrition supplements, offering high-quality supplements
from pre-workouts, protein powders,  BCAAs and intra and
post-workout formulas.[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


RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marc Irwin Sharfman, M.D., P.A. Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radiology and Imaging
Specialists of Lakeland, P.A., Bret D. Hendricks, Case No.
2021-CA-000490 was removed from the Seminole County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
June 9, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-00990 to the
proceeding.

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

Radiology and Imaging Specialists (RIS) --
https://www.risimaging.com/ -- is Central Florida's most advanced
diagnostic and preventative imaging.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel Christopher Griswold, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 649-4088
          Fax: (407) 841-0168
          Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Corporan Sues Over Job Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN CORPORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-05069 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
employment practice that violated the New York State Human Rights
Law and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
manual worker in the position of Animal Care Technician I from in
or about 2018 until on or about May 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has discriminated against
him on the basis of his race by passing him over for promotion in
favor of the two Caucacian employees. He complained about it to his
supervisor Ruben Escano. However, Escano retaliated against him for
opposing the discriminatory promotion by placing him on a
performance improvement plan in November 2020, and subsequently
terminated his employment on or about May 7, 2020.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory
damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
appropriate relief pursuant to the NYLL.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

RENOVATION BRANDS: Pascual Slams Non-Blind Friendly Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Renovation Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-04938, (S.D. N.Y., June 3, 2021), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Renovation Brands is a home improvement company, and owns and
operates the website, www.decorplanet.com, that allows consumers to
access goods and services on its site. Pascual is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, et al. The case is styled as Sabrina Veney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services, LP, LVNV Funding, LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00841-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2021).

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

Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a
manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt
portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Phone: (215) 326-9179
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Jauregui Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GRISELDA JAUREGUI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV12728, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04657 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. is a provider of
transportation services, with its principal place of business in
Downers Grove, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Amberly A. Morgan, Esq.
         Jennifer N. Hinds, Esq.
         HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
         300 South Grand, Suite 1500
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 337-6550
         Facsimile: (213) 337-6551
         E-mail: Amberly.Morgan@huschblackwell.com
                 Jennifer.Hinds@huschblackwell.com

ROJE-PT ST LUCIE: Kingery Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
AIDAN KINGERY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROJE – PT ST LUCIE LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ROJE - JENSEN BEACH LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; and JANET N. WESCH, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-14229-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Roje St Lucie in March 2021 as
a "Chill Staff Member". However, he was required by Roje St Lucie
in April 2021 to work certain hours for Roje Jensen Beach at a
different Dairy Queen location.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay him overtime
wages at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all the hours he worked over 40 in one location in a week and
additional 6 hours in another location that same week. Although one
of the Defendants began paying him $9.50 per hours after he lodged
complaints, but the Defendant still failed to cure the overtime
wage violations he specifically identified in his discussions with
his supervisor, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other further
relief as may be deemed just and reasonable under the
circumstances.

The Corporate Defendants provide the same or substantially similar
ice cream and fast food products to their customers in Stuart,
Florida and Port St. Lucie, Florida. Janet N. Wesch is the owner
and operator of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROMEO POWER: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 6 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. 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=16593&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.

Emergent Biosolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16593&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
Class Period: July 6, 2020 - March 31, 2021

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

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16593&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021

Allegations against DNMR include that: (i) Danimer had deficient
internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had
misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory
compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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


RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Johnson Sues Over Retirement Plan's Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement Savings
Plan, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00743 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of its fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Defendant allegedly breached its fiduciary duties by selecting
the Russell funds for the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement
Savings Plan, transferring over $300 million in assets into the
Russell funds, and retaining the funds throughout its tenure as the
Plan's outsourced investment fiduciary. This was neither prudent
nor in the interest of Plan participants and beneficiaries. The
Plan suffered millions in lost investment returns as a result of
Russell selecting an all-proprietary lineup for Plan participants,
the suit adeded.

Russell Investment Management LLC is a registered investment
adviser firm based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
         SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
         810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Telephone: (206) 622-8000
         Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
         E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com

                - and –

         Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
         Kai H. Richter, Esq.
         Brock J. Specht, Esq.
         Ben Bauer, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4700 IDS Center
         80 S. 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                 krichter@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com
                 bbauer@nka.com

                - and –

         Brandon Hill, Esq.
         WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
         1110 N Florida Avenue, Suite 300
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 579-2483
         Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
         E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

                - and –

         Marc Edelman, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 318-5162
         E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

SALESFORCE.COM: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the court in in the
class action suit related to the Company's merger deal with Tableau
Software, Inc. has set a final settlement approval hearing for
September 14, 2021.

On August 1, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated June 9, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of  Tableau Software, Inc., which provides a
self-service analytics platform that enables users to easily
access, prepare, analyze, and present findings in their data.

In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against Tableau and two of its now
former executive officers.

The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern
District of New York (the "Scheufele Action").

The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on
October 17, 2017.

In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed
an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015
and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements regarding Tableau's business and operations by allegedly
failing to disclose, among other things, that product launches and
software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting
Tableau's competitive position and profitability.

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. In February 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which contains
substantially similar allegations as the amended complaint, and
added as defendants two more of Tableau's now former executive
officers and directors.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which
was denied in February 2019.

Defendants filed an answer to the SAC in March 2019, and
subsequently amended their answer in April 2019. On January 15,
2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. On October 1,
2020, the Court entered an order staying the deadline for summary
judgment motions to allow the parties to complete additional
discovery. The Court has not yet set a trial date.

On March 10, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation in its entirety, which was memorialized in a
formal settlement agreement dated April 16, 2021. On April 16,
2021, lead plaintiff submitted a motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, which was granted on May 7, 2021. The Court has set a
final settlement approval hearing for September 14, 2021.

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SANDERS CANDY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanders Candy, LLC.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sanders Candy, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05121 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Sanders Candy -- https://sanderscandy.com/ -- specializes in
chocolates, confections and desserts.[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


SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION: Crocitto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEE CROCITTO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13318, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 7, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04648 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 unpaid overtime and double time wages, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages,
failure to timely pay final wages upon separation, failure to
timely pay wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements,
failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

Sentinel Transportation, LLC is a provider of transportation
services with its principal place of business and headquarters in
Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Michael S. Chamberlin, Esq.
         Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
         Matthew J. Goodman, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: mchamberlin@bakerlaw.com
                 npoper@bakerlaw.com
                 mgoodman@bakerlaw.com

SIMS GROUP: Parties Seek to Continue July 21 Class Cert. Bid Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAEA SANFT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMS GROUP USA
CORPORATION dba SIMS METAL MANAGEMENT, a California Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-08154-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties stipulate, agree, and ask the Court continue the
Plaintiff's deadline to file his Motion for Class Certification and
modify the briefing schedule as follows:

   -- July 21, 2021:        Plaintiff to file motion for class
                            certification;

   -- September 22, 2021:   Defendant to file Opposition; and

   -- October 27, 2021:     Plaintiff to file Reply

Sims Group is located in Richmond, California and is part of the
recyclable material wholesalers industry.

A copy of the Parties motion dated June 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vfBayN at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff PAEA SANFT individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MH 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          Facsimile: 248-436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

The Attorneys for Defendant SIMS Group USA Corporation, are:

          Bonnie Glatzer, Esq.
          Jade Butman, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          1 Embarcadero Ctr
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8333
          Facsimile: (866) 216-2516
          E-mail: bglatzer@nixonpeabody.com

SKILLZ INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp.
("Skillz Inc.") (NYSE: SKLZ) between December 16, 2020 and April
19, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. To get more information go
to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=16601&wire=5

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

Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. NEWS - SKLZ NEWS

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

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

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Skillz Inc. securities between
December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=16601&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

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

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues
to defend shareholder class action suits in California.

Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of
its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff
originally filed in the County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco
Action") before refiling in the County of San Mateo.

The remaining action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Federal Action"). In the
Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020.

In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss. In May 2020, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to certify the court's order for
interlocutory appeal, which the court granted.

The Company and the other defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. Oral
argument was heard in May 2021, and a decision is pending.

The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the
consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court
Action").

An additional state court action was filed in San Mateo County in
June 2020 but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July
2020. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the
complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020.

In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part
the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint, which they did in October 2020. The Company and the
other defendants answered the complaint in November 2020.

The plaintiff in the San Francisco Action has sought dismissal of
that action after joining the State Court Action. That dismissal
remains pending.

The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement.

Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging
platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their
systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a
secure,
enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest
organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


SOLARWINDS INC: Thoma Bravo, Silver Lake Added in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dowd, writing for Forbes, reports that in early May, a
cyberattack at Colonial Pipeline prompted chaotic gas shortages up
and down the East Coast. A similar hack wreaked havoc on the
operations of JBS, one of the world's largest meat processors. Both
were examples of the rapidly growing trend of ransomware -- virtual
attacks where criminals hold a company's systems hostage until a
payoff is made, often in the untraceable form of bitcoin.

For corporations in every sector, these high-profile incidents have
highlighted the ever-increasing need to make sure that digital
infrastructure is properly protected from black-hat hackers.   

"It is top of mind for every single company now," said Ian Loring,
a longtime executive at Bain Capital who's now a managing partner
at Crosspoint Capital Partners, a new firm that focuses on
investments in the cybersecurity space. "There's just a massive
push in that direction by all corporations."

And that push is creating a massive opportunity for investors like
Crosspoint.

Crosspoint was founded last year by Loring and a list of industry
luminaries, including former Symantec CEO Greg Clark, former
Seagate CEO Steve Luczo and cybersecurity expert Hugh Thompson.
This April, the firm closed its debut fund on $1.3 billion, one of
the largest pools of capital collected in recent years in a maiden
fundraising effort.

The firm's launch came at a time when the larger private equity
industry is pursuing investments in cybersecurity like never
before. Globally, last year brought 116 buyouts in the space and 49
private equity growth investments, both of which were new annual
highs, according to PitchBook data. The combined value of those
deals reached $19.2 billion, which was 92% higher than any other
year on record with the exception of 2016, when data was skewed by
Silver Lake's involvement in Dell's $67 billion acquisition of
EMC.

The surge is continuing in 2021, with PE investors on pace to set
new records for both deal count and deal value in cybersecurity. In
April, Thoma Bravo announced what will be the largest buyout ever
in the space, again per PitchBook data, striking a deal to buy
Proofpoint for $12.3 billion.

A simple explanation for the trend is that private equity firms are
following the money. As the risk of ransomware attacks and other
threats becomes difficult to ignore, companies are increasing
expenditures on cyber safety -- which is great for the business of
the other companies trying to ensure that safety.

"More people are concerned about protection and reaction to these
problems than they are about cost, which means the sector probably
grows at an outsized rate," said Clark, the former Symantec CEO who
has worked in the cyber defense industry for three decades. "That's
one of the big reasons there's a lot of interest in cyber. And the
other thing is, cyber permeates everything now."

Plenty of private equity firms are pursuing cybersecurity
investments these days, with Thoma Bravo, KKR, TPG Capital and
Insight Partners among the other firms that have struck
headline-grabbing deals in recent years. But there are few PE shops
out there focused solely on the industry.

That was part of the motivation for Loring, Clark and the rest of
Crosspoint's founders. In a sector where cutting-edge technology is
crucial, they believe finding attractive investments requires a lot
more expertise beyond parsing balance sheets and planning
restructurings.

"Despite how much activity there is and how fast it's growing, how
big a space it is, there still isn't a depth of competition that
there would be in other sectors," Loring said. "It's a big market,
but it's one where you need to bring technical chops in addition to
traditional investment underwriting experience."

It's also an industry where the threats a company are trying to
combat can take many forms -- and where those threats can extend to
the private equity firms that back such a company.

Late last year, SolarWinds disclosed that its software had been
infiltrated by hackers who were able to push a malware-riddled
software update to thousands of the company's customers. Thoma
Bravo and Silver Lake were SolarWinds' majority backers during the
time the hack was believed to occur. Controversially, the two firms
combined to sell off $459 million in SolarWinds stock less than a
week before the hack was publicly announced; last week, both were
added as defendants to a class-action lawsuit being brought by
SolarWinds shareholders.

These days, though, it's ransomware that's grabbing all the
headlines. When I asked Clark about the danger of this particular
form of attack, he cited the connection of many ransomware hackers
to foreign governments and the untraceable nature of bitcoin as two
contributing factors.  

"I think we've got a ways to go on this problem before we can solve
it," the industry veteran said. "A lot of it is
international-legislation related. You can't launder that money,
even though we have an anonymous cryptocurrency now, without
[drawing] serious attention from banking institutions and bigger
players in some countries. So, it is bolstered by an anonymous
currency, but even without that, it would still be happening. And
it really is driven by the fact that we don't have control over
legislation in some of these places where it creates a safe harbor
for some of these criminals."

Experts have indicated that the hackers behind both the Colonial
Pipeline and JBS attacks have ties to Russia. Ransomware is also
part of the toolbox for North Korea's hacking army.

But even if the ransomware problem is eventually solved, the need
for digital protection won't go away. The cybersecurity industry is
built on a dance between white hats and black hats. Hackers find
one vulnerability to exploit. Security experts shut it down. And
then hackers move onto something new.

For the potential targets of hacks, it can be a scary thought. But
for investors in the space, it also means that the need for
cybersecurity tools will never dry up.  

"These criminal organizations are evolving incredibly quickly,"
Loring said. "If we can figure out how to address ransomware,
there's another thing right behind it. That's the challenge and the
opportunity with the sector." [GN]


ST. CATHERINE: Improperly Pays Hospital Staff, Felix Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERVE FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA MEDICAL CENTER and
CATHOLIC HEALTH SERVICES OF LONG ISLAND, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03220 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay straight wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to comply with notice and
recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Mr. Felix was employed by the Defendants as a respiratory therapist
from June 2016 to March 26, 2021.

St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center is a hospital located in
Smithtown, New York.

Catholic Health Services of Long Island is the owner and operator
of St. Catherine Medical Center, in addition to five other
hospitals across Long Island in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
         Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
         Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
         McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
         260 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 448-1100
         E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                 bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
                 jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

STEAK N SHAKE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wilmoth Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA WILMOTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. STEAK N SHAKE, INC., and SARDAR BIGLARI, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01507-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., June 4, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendants seeking to
recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exempt "Manager"
from approximately September 2018 through January 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she and other similarly situated employees were
classified by the Defendants as exempt from overtime compensation
under the FLSA. Despite routinely scheduled to work 50 hours per
workweek, the Defendants allegedly did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Steak N Shake, Inc. operates a restaurant owned by Sardar Biglari.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DONELON, P.C.
          4600 Madison, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Tel: (816) 221-7100
          Fax: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

                - and –

          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DONELON, P.C.
          6614 Clayton Road, #320
          St. Louis, MO 63117
          Tel: (314) 297-8385
          Fax: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

                - and –

          Pete Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

STORED VALUE: Court Certifies Oregon Class in Brown Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANICA LOVE BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STORED VALUE CARDS, INC. (d/b/a NUMI FINANCIAL); and CENTRAL
NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENID OKLAHOMA, Case No.
3:15-cv-01370-MO (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Mosman entered
an order certifying the following Oregon class:

   "All persons (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional
   facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement
   facility within the state of Oregon, (2) entitled to the return

   of money confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate
   accounts when they were released from custody, and (3) who had
   those funds returned through a debit card provided by Defendant

   Stored Value Cards and/or its partner bank, Defendant Central
   National Bank and Trust Company, despite never having requested

   nor applied for a debit card, within one year prior to the
   filing of the original Complaint in this action, and during its

   pendency, and (4) who incurred fees or charges. Those who
   satisfy these four criteria but who received a debit card from
   April 1, 2017, to April 30, 2018, and did not opt out of the
   settlement class in Humphrey v. Stored Value Cards, No.
1:18-CV-
   01050 (N.D. Ohio), are excluded from this class."

Judge Mosman said, "At issue will be the EFTA claims and the
arbitration defense. I find that a class action is a superior
method to resolve those issues, and resolving them on a statewide
basis will move the ball forward in this litigation. If Ms. Brown
defeats Defendants’ arbitration defense, the parties will then
litigate whether she would defeat the defense for similar reasons
under the law of every state.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 8, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wqyCz2 at no
extra charge.[CC]


STORYVILLE COFFEE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Storyville Coffee
Company LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Storyville Coffee
Company LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05099-RA (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Storyville Coffee Company -- https://storyville.com/ -- is a
privately owned, Seattle-based specialty coffee 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


TAK COMMUNICATIONS: McKee Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TAK Communications,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Caleb McKee, Individually, and
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TAK
Communications, Inc., Cable Technology Communications, LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02385-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 9, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TAK Communications, Inc. -- https://takcommunications.com/ -- is a
nationally recognized Cable Installation Contract Firm for the
Cable TV and Telecommunications industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert Emmett Turner, IV, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Cordova, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 gjackson@jsyc.com


TEXAS: Foster Care System Target of Decade-Old Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Morning News reports that we've sadly grown accustomed
to seeing immigrant children used as pawns in the political fights
and culture wars over this country's border crisis. But even the
most jaded among us should be alarmed by Gov. Greg Abbott's order
to yank state licenses from facilities with federal contracts to
temporarily house unaccompanied minors in Texas.

On June 1, Abbott instructed state regulators to deny or
discontinue licenses for shelters that take care of children
crossing the southern border without papers, giving facilities 90
days to "wind down." The governor blamed the "unabated influx of
individuals" on the federal government and said this influx
threatened to "negatively impact" residential facilities that serve
Texas children in foster care.

Abbott's order did not explain what the impact is on state child
care regulators and resources. The federal government pays for the
housing and services provided to unaccompanied minors by 52
state-licensed facilities and child-placing agencies in Texas. The
children remain at these facilities for days or weeks until they
can be released to a sponsor, usually a relative in the U.S.

The surge of unaccompanied minors is a separate problem from what
ails the state's foster care system, the target of a decade-old,
class-action lawsuit in federal court.

Texas has lost about 1,000 foster care beds since the fall. Experts
have cited the COVID-19 pandemic, tighter enforcement from the
federal lawsuit and more lucrative reimbursements from federal
contracts as reasons providers are dropping off.

Our colleagues Robert Garrett and Dianne Solís reported that it's
unclear how many facilities serve both foster children and
unaccompanied minors. And we don't know whether Abbott's order will
actually increase foster care capacity. A major provider of federal
beds, San Antonio-based BCFS, told this newspaper that it was
working to understand the impact of the governor's order on its
operations.

What is more apparent is that Abbott's edict could displace more
than 4,000 immigrant kids in licensed child care facilities in
Texas.

A spokeswoman with U.S. Health and Human Services said the agency
did not intend to close any facilities, though a court settlement
requires the use of state-licensed shelters to house unaccompanied
minors. However, there is an emergency provision that may allow
kids to be housed in unlicensed sites for a limited amount of time.
We await the agency's legal conclusions about its options.

Child advocates fear immigrant children could be forced to remain
in unsuitable border holding facilities or in unlicensed emergency
sites set up by the Biden administration to address the federal
government's own bed shortage. Some of these emergency sites have
been plagued by problems, which prompted Abbott not too long ago to
express concern for the children there.

If that concern is sincere, we urge the governor to rescind his
order.

Are state child care regulators overwhelmed? Then ask the feds for
help. And build on an omnibus foster care bill passed this
legislative session to help expand capacity and support in parts of
Texas. Fixing the state's foster care system must be a legislative
priority. [GN]

TILRAY INC: Delaware Court Refuses to Dismiss Reorganization Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TILRAY, INC. REORGANIZATION LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM (Del. Ch.), Judge Kathaleen S.
McCormick of the Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated
Verified Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint.

Three friends -- Defendants Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, and
Michael Blue -- quit their jobs nearly a decade ago to capitalize
on the expansion of the legal cannabis industry.  They created
Privateer Holdings, Inc. to facilitate their investments.  Through
Privateer, they formed Tilray, a cannabis research, cultivation,
processing, and distribution company.

The long shot paid off, and the founders successfully took Tilray
public in July 2018, which caused the value of Privateer's
investment to skyrocket.  This, in turn, prompted the founders to
explore ways to reorganize the business to avoid federal tax
consequences resulting from capital gains.  The founders settled on
a downstream merger in which the Company cancelled Privateer's
Tilray stock and then issued Tilray stock to Privateer's
stockholders.

The Plaintiffs are Tilray stockholders.  They claim that Privateer
and the founders controlled Tilray and used that control to obtain
tax benefits through the reorganization without adequately
compensating the Company and its minority stockholders.  They
assert derivative claims against Privateer, the founders, and
certain Tilray directors.  To meet the demand requirement, they
contend that the majority of Tilray's board of directors were
interested in or lacked independence as to the challenged
reorganization, such that demand was excused as futile.

The Plaintiffs each own shares of Tilray Class 2 stock.  Each filed
claims challenging the Reorganization.  The Court consolidated the
actions on March 20, 2020, and the Plaintiffs filed their Amended
Complaint on July 17, 2020, asserting two Counts.

In Count I, the Plaintiffs assert a direct claim against Privateer
and the Founders for breaching their fiduciary duties as
controllers.  They claim that the Founders, working as a control
group with Privateer, breached their fiduciary duties in two ways.
First, they claim that the Founders used the Reorganization to
perpetuate their control over Tilray.  This decision refers to this
theory as the "control-based theory."  Second, the Plaintiffs claim
that the Founders used the Reorganization to extract non-ratable
tax benefits from Tilray and its minority stockholders.  In Count
II, the Plaintiffs assert a derivative claim that Kennedy,
Auerbach, and Greenwood breached their fiduciary duties as
directors.

Privateer and the Founders moved to dismiss Count I pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).  Tilray and the Director
Defendants moved to dismiss Count II pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 23.1, arguing that demand was not made and is not excused as
futile.  Groh and Blue separately moved to dismiss themselves as
Defendants pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(5) for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service
of process.  The parties fully briefed the motions and the Court
heard oral argument on Feb. 5, 2021.

Legal Analysis

Judge McCormick first addresses Privateer's and the Founders'
motions to dismiss Count I pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  Next, she
addresses the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II
pursuant to Rule 23.1.  Last, she addresses Groh and Blue's motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A. Motion to Dismiss Count I Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

In Count I, the Plaintiffs claim that the Founders comprised a
control group and that they used their control to unfairly extract
unique, non-ratable tax benefits through the Reorganization.  The
Defendants dispute that the Founders, individually or collectively,
were controllers with concomitant fiduciary obligations.  They
further dispute that the Reorganization was a self-dealing
transaction subject to review under the entire fairness standard.

Judge McCormick opines that the Plaintiffs adequately allege that
the Founders comprised a control group.  She finds that the
Plaintiffs' allegations make it reasonably conceivable that the
desire to avoid massive tax liabilities through the Reorganization
was more than merely a concurrent interest, but rather, a shared
goal that the Founders agreed or arranged to work toward.  It it is
reasonably conceivable that Kennedy needed Groh and Blue to
accomplish the Reorganization even if he independently controlled
aspects of Privateer or Tilray.  Because the Amended Complaint has
pled facts from which it is reasonably conceivable that the
Founders had a concurrence of interest as well as historically
significant and transaction-specific ties, it is reasonably
conceivable that they comprised a control group over Privateer and,
through Privateer, Tilray.

The Judge also opines that the Plaintiffs adequately allege that
the Reorganization was a conflicted transaction and is subject to
entire fairness review.  She holds that the Founders stood to gain
a unique benefit from Tilray.  As Intermedia and WorldCom needed
the Digex board's approval of the Section 203 waiver to complete
the merger, the Founders needed the Board's approval of the
downstream merger, stock cancellation, and stock issuance to
effectuate the second step of the Reorganization and obtain the
corresponding tax benefits.  Based on these unique benefits alone,
the Plaintiffs are entitled to entire fairness review.  It is
reasonably conceivable that the Tilray board failed to exert
leverage over Privateer and the Founders in the Reorganization
negotiations to the detriment of Tilray and its minority
stockholders.

B. Motion to Dismiss Count II Pursuant to Rule 23.1

Judge McCormick's analysis focuses on Auerbach and Greenwood.

The Plaintiffs advance many theories challenging Auerbach's
disinterest and independence.  They allege that Auerbach served as
a director of both Privateer and Tilray.  As a Privateer director,
Auerbach owed fiduciary obligations to Privateer and its
stockholders.  Privateer and Tilray were on opposite sides of the
negotiating table, rendering Auerbach conflicted with respect to
the Reorganization.

The Plaintiffs likewise advance multiple theories challenging
Greenwood's disinterest and independence.  The Amended Complaint
adequately alleges that Greenwood was beholden to the Founders and
Privateer due to her employment with Crestview.  Specifically, the
Amended Complaint notes that Privateer and Tilray have engaged
Crestview since at least 2015 and that Crestview has lobbied on
Tilray's behalf in favor of legalized and regulated recreational
and medical cannabis.

The Defendants dispute this conclusion, arguing that the Plaintiffs
have not sufficiently alleged that the Founders' business is
material to Crestview.  Yet, on this Rule 23.1 pleadings-stage
motion, Judge McCormick says the Plaintiffs are entitled to the
reasonable inferences that logically flow from particularized facts
pled in the Amended Complaint.  Given the volume of work performed
by Crestview on behalf of Privateer and Tilray, it is reasonable to
infer that Privateer and Tilray were material clients for Crestview
and Greenwood.

In light of the particularized facts pled as to Auerbach and
Greenwood, and because the Defendants do not dispute that Kennedy
also could not impartially consider a demand, Judge McCormick holds
that the Amended Complaint has adequately pled that demand on the
Board would have been futile.  Demand is therefore excused and the
Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule
23.1 is denied.

C. Motion to Dismiss Groh and Blue for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
Groh and Blue under Delaware's Long-Arm Statute based on the
conspiracy theory of jurisdiction.

The Delaware Supreme Court established the elements of the
conspiracy theory of jurisdiction in Istituto Bancario Italiano SpA
v. Hunter Engineering Co.: A conspirator who is absent from the
forum state is subject to the jurisdiction of the court  if the
plaintiff can make a factual showing that: (1) a conspiracy
existed; (2) the defendant was a member of that conspiracy; (3) a
substantial act or substantial effect in furtherance of the
conspiracy occurred in the forum state; (4) the defendant knew or
had reason to know of the act in the forum state or that acts
outside the forum state would have an effect in the forum state;
and (5) the act in, or effect on, the forum state was a direct and
foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the
conspiracy.

Judge McCormick holds that because the Amended Complaint adequately
alleges that Groh and Blue are control group members, the first and
second Istituto Bancario elements are met.  With respect to the
third element, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that
Blue's filing of the Privateer's charter amendment was integral to
the challenged transaction, as the Founders conditioned the
transaction on its approval.  Regarding the fourth and fifth
Istituto Bancario elements, the Judge finds that as members of the
control group, it is reasonably conceivable that both Groh and Blue
knew or had reason to know that those corporate instruments were
filed in Delaware in connection with the Reorganization.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have adequately pled each factor of the
Istituto Bancario test, thus establishing personal jurisdiction
over Groh and Blue under Istituto Bancario.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCormick denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 1, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9wrvthsb from Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springerm -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- Jessica Zeldinm --
jzeldin@andrewsspringer.com -- David M. Sborz --
dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC, in
Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Jeffrey M. Gorris,
Christopher M. Foulds, FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A., in Wilmington,
Delaware; Jeremy S. Friedman, David F.E. Tejtel, FRIEDMAN OSTER &
TEJTEL PLLC, in Bedford Hills, New York; Mark Lebovitch, David
Wales, Andrew Blumberg, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP,
in New York City; D. Seamus Kaskela, KASKELA LAW LLC, in Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania; Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Michael A. Pittenger -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com -- Matthew F.
Davis -- mdavis@potteranderson.com -- David A. Seal --
dseal@potteranderson.com -- Caneel Radinson-Blasucci --
cradinsonblasucci@potteranderson.com -- POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Nominal Defendant Tilray,
Inc.

Michael P. Kelly -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- Daniel M. Silver --
dsilver@mccarter.com -- Sarah E. Delia -- sdelia@mccarter.com --
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for
Defendants Brendan Kennedy and Privateer Evolution, LLC.

Carl N. Kunz, III -- ckunz@morrisjames.com -- K. Tyler O'Connell --
swaesco@morrisnichols.com -- Albert J. Carroll --
acarroll@morrisjames.com -- MORRIS JAMES LLP, in Wilmington,
Delaware; Ronald L. Berenstain, Sean C. Knowles, PERKINS COIE LLP,
in Seattle, Washington; Counsel for Defendants Christian Groh and
Michael Blue.

Susan W. Waesco -- swaesco@morrisnichols.com -- John P. DiTomo --
jditomo@morrisnichols.com -- Daniel T. Menken --
dmenken@morrisnichols.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendant Maryscott
Greenwood.

Blake Rohrbacher -- rohrbacher@rlf.com -- Matthew W. Murphy --
murphy@rlf.com -- Elizabeth A. Heise, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendant Michael
Auerbach.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Soy Wiring Class Action Lawsuit Partly Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
soy wiring lawsuit has been partly dismissed after an appeals court
sent some of the claims back to the lower district court.

The Toyota rodent damage lawsuit alleges Toyota switched its wiring
harness from vinyl chloride to a soy-based material.

This allegedly causes rodents such as mice, rats and squirrels to
chew the wiring and damage vital components.

Toyota argues rats and other creatures have chewed on things
throughout history and vehicles from other automakers suffer the
same fate.

But the plaintiffs say customer complaints allegedly prove Toyota
knows the soy wiring is a problem.

After allowing the plaintiffs to refile their class action lawsuit
multiple times, the judge finally dismissed the entire complaint.

The dismissal was appealed to the Ninth Circuit which sent the
lawsuit back to the lower court based on a few claims.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of state fraud
and consumer protection claims but reversed dismissal of some
implied warranty of merchantability claims and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA) claims.

The eight Toyota customers filed a consolidated class action
lawsuit asserting seven claims for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability arising under state law and one claim for violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Judge Cormac J. Carney found the remaining claims are based on the
same allegations and legal theories as in the first amended Toyota
soy wiring lawsuit.

Toyota Soy Wiring Lawsuit Motion to Dismiss
Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the rodent damage lawsuit, but
according to the judge, the Ninth Circuit's mandate is clear.

"The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal with
prejudice 'of [Plaintiffs'] state-law fraud and consumer protection
claims' and reversed the Court's dismissal 'of [Plaintiffs']
implied warranty of merchantability claims . . . and MMWA claims.'"
-- Judge Cormac J. Carney

The judge says the Ninth Circuit held the plaintiffs had plausibly
alleged their implied warranty and MMWA claims, but failed in their
claims under state law fraud and consumer protection statutes.

According to the judge, to now dismiss the soy wiring lawsuit
implied warranty claims, "would contravene the Circuit's clear
mandate and relitigate issues the Ninth Circuit decided either
expressly or by necessary implication."

The judge also ruled it would be improper to permit the UCL claim
to proceed after its dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

The Toyota soy wiring lawsuit will continue based on implied
warranty of merchantability claims, but the judge dismissed the
California Unfair Competition Law claim with prejudice.

The Toyota soy wiring lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California: Heber, et al., v. Toyota
Motor Sales U.S.A., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bisnar Chase LLP, Whitfield
Bryson And Mason LLP, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, and Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP. [GN]

TREATS UNLEASHED: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Treats Unleashed,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Treats Unleashed, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05101 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Treats Unleashed -- https://treats-unleashed.com/ -- is a one-stop
shop for all-natural pet food, fresh-baked treats and custom pet
cakes, grooming and self-wash, as well as a wide selection of
quality dog and cat toys, collars, beds, pet supplies and
more.[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



TRUECAR INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truecar, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Truecar, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05107
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

TrueCar, Inc. -- https://www.truecar.com/ -- is an automotive
pricing and information website for new and used car buyers.[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


U.S. RENAL: Bruno Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANUEL BRUNO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV08325, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 4, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04617-FLA-MRW 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

U.S. Renal Care, Inc. is a dialysis provider, headquartered in
Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
          
         Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
         David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
                 david.szwarcsztejn@ogletree.com

UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Court Dismisses Foster Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia dismisses the case, CHRISTOPHER FOSTER,
Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents, Civil Action No.
21-1407 (UNA) (D.D.C.).

Christopher Foster, appearing pro se, has filed a purported
application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section
2241, captioned "Class Action Application for Insurrection
Suppression, Employment-Service & Bounty."

Judge McFadden notes that the writ of habeas corpus will not extend
to a petitioner unless he is "in custody" under some authority.  He
finds that the Petitioner's address of record in Toledo, Ohio,
appears to be a residence, and he has stated nothing to suggest
that he is in custody.  Even if he is challenging some form of
custody, the Judge holds that the Petitioner has not named a proper
habeas respondent.

As for the "class action application," a lay person like the
Petitioner can neither prosecute the claims of other individuals
nor act as a class representative pro se.  Therefore, this case
will be dismissed.  A separate Order accompanies the Memorandum
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yje75454 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces LGBTQ Discrimination-Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nara Schoenberg, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Megan
Steffen had completed all her college coursework at Moody Bible
Institute in Chicago and was at home with her parents in Michigan,
waiting to graduate, when she got an email from the school, telling
her an administrator needed to talk with her.

She agreed to a meeting via Zoom, where she learned that faculty
members at the conservative Christian college had raised objections
to her graduation.

Then the two administrators on the Zoom call began asking
questions, among them: Had Steffen ever had romantic or sexual
relations with a woman? Had she ever dated men? Did she envision
dating women in the future?

Steffen, who had faced pushback at Moody ever since coming out as a
lesbian two years before, answered the questions as best she could,
in the hope that she would be allowed to graduate.

"I had a lot of meetings with (administrators) and they always got
worse," said Steffen. "But that felt the most violating, for
sure."

Steffen, 24, of Chicago is one of 33 plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education calling for
enforcement of Title IX anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ
students at religious institutions.

The lawsuit complains of "abuses and unsafe conditions" at hundreds
of religious colleges and universities that receive federal funding
but don't have to adhere to Title IX in the case of LGBTQ students,
due to a religious exemption. Plaintiffs allege they have been
denied admission, expelled, subjected to anti-gay slurs, pressured
into conversion therapy and otherwise treated unequally.

"There's a really big need for LGBTQ students at these campuses to
be protected," said Paul Southwick, director of the Religious
Exemption Accountability Project, which filed the lawsuit.

"Right now nobody is protecting them," he said.

Moody, where Steffen graduated in 2020, responded to questions from
the Tribune with a written statement saying, "as a faith-based
institution, Moody Bible Institute holds to a number of biblical
convictions, including a historic, biblical understanding of
marriage as part of broader religious convictions around human
sexuality and gender." Moody noted that students "voluntarily agree
to support" school policies upon admission.

Moody's website says, "Based on Scripture, nonmarital sex,
homosexual sex, same-sex romantic relationships, and gender
identification incongruent with one's birth-sex all violate God's
generous intention for human relationships. Such practices
misrepresent the nature of God Himself, and therefore are sinful
under any circumstance."

The school declined to discuss Steffen's case, saying her records
are confidential and protected by federal law, but stated a
commitment to "deepening our understanding of how we can best
provide and strengthen support for all students on our campuses."

"We believe all persons are created in the image of God and possess
full dignity, value, and worth, and therefore, bullying,
harassment, and assault of any kind are not tolerated on our
campuses," according to the statement.

Steffen, who grew up in a conservative Christian household in
Michigan, said that her first two years at Moody went well. Then,
in spring 2018, administrators concerned that she and some
classmates had attended the second Women's March Chicago, called
her in for a meeting. Administrators' concern, she said, appeared
to be that they perceived the march as pro-abortion rights.

In the course of the meeting, Steffen, who had only been out as a
lesbian for two months at that point, brought up concerns that her
fellow students were responding negatively to her sexual
orientation.

"I never expected them to be allies or heralding me at a Pride
Parade — I knew that wasn't the circumstance I was in," Steffen
said of administrators. "But to see the lack of concern when I
expressed the way I was being treated by my peers, the lack of
respect, that was just (hard)."

Some students told her, to her face, that they disapproved of her
sexual orientation, she said; there were also a lot of disapproving
messages online. Once, she got an anonymous letter in the mail
saying she should be ashamed of herself. Classmates would ask her
to go out for coffee on the pretext of wanting to learn more, and
then try to make her renounce her sexual orientation.

As a devout Christian, the hardest thing was being told by students
that she had offended God, she said.

"To hear that this God that you've believed in all your life does
not love and accept you for who you are (makes it) hard not to hate
yourself," she said.

Meanwhile, administrators repeatedly called her into meetings —
about 10 in all — and expressed a range of concerns related to
her sexual orientation. After she posted a joke on Facebook about
the irony of being an out lesbian at Moody in fall 2019, she
received a formal warning about her "inappropriate media posts"
saying that her behavior was "dangerously close to the probationary
level."

After she finished her academic requirements in December 2019, she
debated whether she even wanted to return to campus for her
diploma.

"I felt so unwelcome, and it hurt so much to be there," she said.

In a written statement, the Council for Christian Colleges &
Universities , which opposes the lawsuit, said the key issue is
religious freedom.

"What faith-based colleges and universities are doing is exercising
their First Amendment right to maintain a campus community in which
everyone is committed to living out a historic, biblical
understanding of human sexuality, regardless of their sexual
orientation or gender identity," the statement said.

"Others might disagree with the underlying theology, but
implementing this theology on a Christian college or university
campus is not the same as 'discriminating' against LGBTQ students.
Believing differently is not discrimination."

Southwick said the students' constitutional rights to equal
protection and due process should take precedence over the schools'
First Amendment rights.

"If you look to the civil rights era, many of these same religious
colleges also prohibited interracial dating and interracial
marriage on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs," he
said. "It wasn't until the government intervened and said, 'We're
no longer going to tolerate racial discrimination in education --
we're not going to subsidize it,' (that) a bunch of the schools all
of a sudden no longer believed that."

During her final meeting with administrators two weeks before
graduation, Steffen, the daughter of a gym teacher and a day care
provider, did what she could to deflect intrusive questions, but
she was also keenly aware of what was at stake: She had to keep her
head down and get her diploma, she said, because she could not
financially afford to do anything else.

In the end, she received her diploma.

Now working as a barista in Lincoln Park, Steffen said she's begun
to fully heal from her Moody experience with the help of friends,
family and therapy. She's in touch with some current LGBTQ students
at Moody and is putting together a list of resources to help them.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit is just beginning to wind its way through
the courts. There are scenarios in which the exemption could be
lifted within months, Southwick said, and others in which the legal
battle could go on for years.

Steffen said she sees the lawsuit as a fight for the basics:
respect, decency, and equal protection.

"I don't think Moody's ever going to become what in the Christian
world they call affirming, which just means fully accepting of
LGBTQ people," Steffen said.

"However, as much as I find their beliefs so, so, so hurtful, you
can still hold those beliefs and not actively discriminate." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Jacob et al., Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAN VARGHESE JACOB, et
al., v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00261-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order:

   1. denying the motion for expedited discovery as it relates to
      DV-2021 Plaintiffs because the information sought has already

      been provided by the Government in its biweekly status
      reports.

   2. granting the Government's Motion to Dismiss this case as moot

      as it pertains to the family preference and IR-5 Plaintiffs;

   3. denying the motion for class certification, motion for
      preliminary injunctive relief, and motion for expedited
      discovery as moot and for lack of standing for Plaintiffs in

      the family preference immigrant visa category and those in
      the IR-5 immigrant visa category;

   4. denying the Government's motion to dismiss as it pertains to

      DV-2021 Plaintiffs, because these Plaintiffs continue to
      possess standing;

   5. denying the Motion for Class Certification Because DV-2021
      Plaintiffs have not alleged a class action in the operative
      complaint;

   6. denying without prejudice the Motion for Preliminary
      Injunctive Relief as it pertains to DV-2021 Plaintiffs; and

   7. directing DV-2021 Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended
      Complaint which properly alleges a class action and directing

      DV-2021 Plaintiffs to file renewed Motions for Class
      Certification and Preliminary Injunctive Relief:

      -- Plaintiffs shall file the SAC and these motions by June
         22, 2021.

      -- The Government shall file its response to the SAC and its

         opposition to these motions by July 2, 2021.

      -- The Court will hear argument on the Second Amended
         Complaint and the renewed Motions for Class Certification

         and Preliminary Injunctive Relief on July 15, 2021.

      -- The Court also directs the parties to meet and 21 confer
         to see if they can stipulate to relief.

The Plaintiffs are 2,196 immigrant visa applicants or their United
States citizen and legal permanent resident family members who
bring suit on behalf of a putative class of more than 450,000
applicants in the immediate relative and family preference
categories, along with a limited number of selectees from the
Diversity Visa 2021 lottery program.

This suit challenges the legality of Presidential Proclamation
10014 (P.P. 10014) and its extensions, which suspended the entry
into the United States of most aliens as immigrants subject to
certain limited exceptions, and (2) the implementation of P.P.
10014 by the Department of State (DOS), hich suspended the
processing and adjudication of applications from immigrants who
were subject to the entry ban.

The Biden Administration has rescinded P.P. 10014 with Presidential
Proclamation 23 10149 (P.P. 10149), and the Government moves to
dismiss this case as moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

On April 22, 2020, President Trump enacted P.P. 10014, titled
Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the United
States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019
Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, pursuant to his authority under section
1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gaR1u8 at no extra charge.[CC]


URBAN ALCHEMY: Belle Slams Retaliation, Workplace Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Belle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Urban Alchemy and Does 1 through 25,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV20810 (Cal. Super., June 4,
2021), seeks redress for failure to authorize or permit required
meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code including
damages for disability discrimination, failure to prevent
harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of Cal.
Gov. Code Sec. 12940.

Urban Alchemy operates a cleaning service in Los Angeles where
Belle worked as an hourly non-exempt employee. Belle complained
about his high blood pressure and the injuries he sustained while
at work then claims to be retaliated against by having his hours
cut and getting reprimanded for wearing his hat backwards and other
made-up reasons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Roven, Esq.
      Britanie Martinez, Esq.
      JONNY LAW
      P.O. Box 3989
      Valley Village, CA 91617-3989
      Tel: (818) 639-3997
      Fax: (818) 471-4164
      Email: jon@calljonnylaw.com
             britanie@calljonnylaw.com


VIVINT INC: Bids for Partial Summary Judgment in Cunningham Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM; and ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIVINT,
INC.; JOHN DOE CORPORATION, d.b.a. NATIONAL SOLAR PROGRAM; and DSI
DISTRIBUTING, INC., d.b.a. DSI SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00568-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah denied Defendant DSI's
motion for partial summary judgment and Defendant Vivint's motion
for partial summary judgment.

Before the Court are two motions for partial summary judgment filed
by Defendants DSI and Vivint.  Both motions seek summary judgment
with respect to the claims of Plaintiff Cunningham.  Specifically,
they contend that Cunningham released any claims under the
Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA) when he executed a
pre-suit settlement agreement with the Defendants.

Plaintiff Cunningham is one of the Plaintiffs in the putative class
action lawsuit brought against DSI and Vivint.  He alleges that he
received an "automated telemarketing call from DSI for Vivint" on
Feb. 25, 2019, in alleged violation of the TCPA.

Mr. Cunningham had "previously complained to Vivint about a series
of telemarketing calls, including from DSI" in 2018.  As a result
of his complaints to Vivint in 2018, Cunningham reached a
settlement with Vivint, DSI, and another entity, Trips Marketing,
LLC, which was memorialized in a Release and Settlement Agreement
dated March 27, 2018.

Paragraph 2 of the Agreement states: "Release by Cunningham. Upon
the Effective Date, Cunningham, any predecessor or successor of
his, or any other entity or person claiming by, through, or under
any of them (Cunningham Releasing Parties), hereby releases and
forever discharges Vivint, and any predecessor or successor of
Vivint's, and its affiliates, agents, attorneys, and
representatives (Vivint Released Parties), DSI, and any predecessor
or successor of DSI's, and its affiliates, agents, attorneys, and
representatives (DSI Released Parties), and Trips Marketing, LLC
and any predecessor or successor of DSI's, and its affiliates,
agents, attorneys, and representatives (Trips Released Parties) of
and from any and all claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, actions
(including participation in any class), causes of action, suits,
contracts, covenants, agreements, promises, trespasses, debts,
dues, demands, accounts, bonds, bills, notices, controversies,
obligations, liabilities, damages, judgments, executions, liens,
encumbrances, claims for contribution and indemnity, losses, costs
or expenses of any nature whatsoever, in law or in equity, known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, fixed or
contingent, matured or unmatured, that the Cunningham Releasing
Parties at any time had, owned, or held from the beginning of time
through the date of this Agreement against the Released Parties
(except for any obligations arising under this Agreement). All of
the foregoing are hereinafter collectively referred to as
Cunningham's Claims. Cunningham hereby waives the right to
commence, institute, participate in or prosecute any lawsuit,
action, or other proceeding against the Vivint Released Parties,
DSI Released Parties, and Trips Marketing Released Parties relating
to, arising from, or in connection with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act or any other telemarketing law."

Analysis

In the action, Cunningham alleges that Defendants DSI and Vivint
violated the TCPA when they sent him unsolicited text messages and
automated telephone calls on his cellular phone in 2019.
Approximately one year before these alleged texts and calls,
Cunningham reached an agreement with Vivint and DSI in settlement
of any possible claims arising from similar earlier telemarketing
communications he received.  The question presented in the instant
motions is whether the 2018 Agreement waives all potential future
telemarketing violation claims that Cunningham may later obtain,
including those raised in the Complaint in this matter.

Judge Barlow holds that the Defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment on their argument that Cunningham's telemarketing claims
are precluded by his earlier Agreement with the Defendants.  He
finds that the waiver provision is facially ambiguous, making the
readings that both sides urge possible.  The waiver contains no
temporal limitation, so it could be read as a forever ban under any
existing or potential future circumstances.  However, whether the
parties intended such a broad waiver remains a question of fact.

The provision is also susceptible to another, more limited,
interpretation.  The Judge finds that it immediately follows a
sentence in which Cunningham releases existing claims.  Because it
does not explicitly expand the temporal scope from the previous
sentence ("from the beginning of time through the date of this
Agreement [arch 2018"), the sentence could be read as a waiver of
the right to file suit on only claims arising after March 2018.
The calls and messages of which Cunningham complains in this case
occurred in 2019.  The intent to waive a right must be expressed
with a "clear reference" to the concept of waiver of all future
claims.

The Judge "will not infer from a general contractual provision that
the parties intended to waive a statutorily protected right unless
the undertaking is explicitly stated."  Accordingly, the waiver
provision's ambiguity requires the denial of the motions for
partial summary judgment.  The Defendants have failed to establish
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are
entitled to judgment as a matter.

Order

For the reasons he stated in his Memorandum Decision and Order,
Judge Barlow denied both motions for partial summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/r99w2c23 from
Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Audi Coolant Pump Class Action Lawsuit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an Audi
coolant pump class action lawsuit settlement has been reached after
vehicle owners complained the turbochargers were affected by
defects in the electric coolant pumps.

The Audi lawsuit includes some (not all) of these models.

   * 2013-2016 Audi A4 Sedan & allroad
   * 2013-2017 Audi A5 Sedan & Cabriolet
   * 2013-2017 Audi Q5
   * 2012-2015 Audi A6

According to the Audi owner who filed the class action lawsuit,
Audi has known about the coolant pumps since at least 2016 when a
recall was announced in January 2017 to allegedly deactivate the
power supply to the coolant pump if the pump was blocked with
debris.

This was supposed to prevent fires caused by overheated coolant
pumps, but the class action alleges the repairs didn't fix the
problems.

Audi also ordered a coolant pump recall in April 2018 but owners
were told the new replacement pumps wouldn't be available until
November 2018. Dealers were told to replace any faulty pumps with
new pumps to keep the vehicles going until the newly designed
coolant pumps were available.

The Audi owner who sued doesn't allege his coolant pump experienced
any problems, but he filed the class action because replacement
pumps wouldn't be available for about seven months.

The plaintiff claims Audi should have provided owners and lessees
with free vehicles to drive until the permanent replacement pumps
were available.

Volkswagen denies all claims of wrongdoing and maintains there is
nothing wrong with the vehicles and no warranties were breached.

Audi Coolant Pump Class Action Settlement Terms
According to the settlement, a customer may be eligible for a
warranty extension, but there are different "categories" to qualify
for an extension.

Category 1: If prior to April 12, 2021, no coolant pump recall has
been performed on the vehicle or if only the software update
related to the 2017 recall was performed, the duration of the
warranty extension on the turbocharger will be the greater of 14
months from April 12, 2021, or nine months from the date which the
original vehicle turbocharger warranty expires.

If the turbocharger was replaced by August 10, 2021, then the
duration of the warranty extension on the turbocharger will be 14
months from the date the 2018 recall replacement was performed or
nine months from the date the original turbocharger warranty
expires.

Category 2: If prior to April 12, 2021, the coolant pump recall
repair of disconnecting the pump was performed, the duration of the
warranty extension on the turbocharger will be 14 months following
the expiration of the existing four-year warranty extension on the
turbocharger.

There are two additional categories related to warranty extensions
you can read by clicking the link below.

Audi is only responsible for work performed by a dealership, not an
independent repair shop.

Reimbursement for Cost of Coolant Pump Replacement
If prior to September 14, 2018, a current or former owner or lessee
paid out-of-pocket expenses to repair or replace a failed coolant
pump, it may be possible to be reimbursed once the settlement is
final, based on these conditions.

If the repair or replacement was performed by an Audi dealer, the
entire coolant pump cost will be reimbursed.

If the repair or replacement was performed by an independent
service center, a customer may be eligible for reimbursement to a
maximum of $542.

Rental Car Reimbursement Related to Audi Coolant Pump Recall
An Audi customer may be eligible for reimbursement of a rental car
while the dealer was replacing the coolant pump based on a recall.

Customers must submit the required documentation to receive
reimbursements.

Claim forms and additional details about warranty extensions can be
found at CoolantPumpSettlement.com.

Volkswagen has agreed to pay attorneys for the plaintiff
$1,050,000.

The Audi coolant pump class action lawsuit won't be final until a
judge approves the settlement agreement. The final fairness hearing
is scheduled for June 16, 2021.

The Audi coolant pump class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey: Sager, et al., v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et. al.

The plaintiff is represented by Lemberg Law, LLC. [GN]

WAGERS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wagers Inc. The case
is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Wagers Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05122
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Wagers Inc. -- https://wagers.net/ -- provides solutions that
assist with the maintenance and reporting of unclaimed
property.[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


WAKE FOREST: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Garnick Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLEY R. GARNICK, TANAJAH CLARK and ZOE R. JONES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WAKE
FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE RETIREMENT
BENEFIT COMMITTEE OF WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER
and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00454 (M.D.N.C.,
June 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached the duties they
owed to the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center 403(b) Retirement
Savings Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of
the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately
review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that
each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's
administrative and recordkeeping costs. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of
losses due to excessive costs and lower net investment returns. Had
the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan
would not have suffered these losses, and the Plan's participants
would have had more money available to them for their retirement.

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health
system based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         John Szymankiewicz, Esq.
         MATHESON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         127 West Hargett Street, Suite 100
         Raleigh, NC 27601
         Telephone: (919) 335-5291
         Facsimile: (919) 516-0686

                - and –

         Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         2933 North Front Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 233-4101
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

                - and –

         Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         312 Old Lancaster Road
         Merion Station, PA 19066
         Telephone: (610) 890-0200
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

WELLS FARGO: Bid to Modify Briefing Schedule in Stoff Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL STOFF, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00793-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies
the Parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation.

Before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation to
Modify the Briefing Schedule on the Plaintiff's motion to remand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) and the Defendant's motions
to dismiss and to strike the Plaintiff's Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("SAC").

Plaintiff Stoff, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, brings the action against Defendant
Wells Fargo, a Delaware corporation, alleging violations of
California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, CAL. CIV. CODE
Section 1785.1, et seq., and Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE Section 17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff, a Wells Fargo home loan borrower, alleges that in
early April 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, he requested and
received a three-month forbearance of his mortgage obligations
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 9001, et seq. ("CARES Act").  Despite his
forbearance request, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
furnished inaccurate information to the various credit reporting
agencies that the mortgage was in forbearance.  He alleges this
negatively impacted his credit score and required him to file a
dispute with credit reporting agencies.

On June 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his original complaint
against the Defendant, commencing Michael Stoff v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and DOES 1-10, San Diego Superior Court Case No.
37-2020-00020808-CU-BTCTL ("State Court Action").  On June 24, the
Plaintiff served Defendant with the Summons and Initial Complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint,
which the San Diego Superior Court sustained on Jan. 8, 2021, while
granting leave to amend.  Accordingly, on Jan. 19, 2021, the
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").  On Feb. 22,
2021, the Defendant filed a Demurrer to the FAC as well.  Instead
of opposing the demurrer, on March 23, 2021, the Plaintiff filed
the operative SAC for Damages.

On April 22, 2021, before responding to the SAC, the Defendant
removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441(a), 1446, and 1453(b).
Shortly thereafter, on April 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's SAC, and Strike the Nationwide Class
Allegations in Paragraph 62 of the SAC, both of which are scheduled
to be heard on June 14, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

On May 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), which is scheduled to be heard on June
21, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.

On May 25, 2021, the Parties filed the instant Joint Motion.  In
their Joint Motion, the Parties agree, subject to Court approval,
to modify the briefing and hearing schedule on the Plaintiff's
motion to remand and the Defendant's motions to dismiss and to
strike.  They proposed that both the Parties' oppositions to the
motions would be due on June 18, 2021, and the Parties' replies in
support of the motions would be due on July 9, 2021.  They also
seek to continue the hearing on all three motions to July 19, 2021,
at 10:30 a.m.

Separate and aside from the fact that the Parties both desire and
agree to the modified schedule, they provide no reasoning as to why
the Court should continue the dates.  Benitez bears in mind that
the case is nearing the one-year mark of its original filing in the
San Diego Superior Court, yet remains in the pleading stage with
jurisdiction still needing to be determined.  More importantly, if
the case is appropriate for dismissal or remand, the Court needs
adequate time to review such briefing.  As such, Benitez denies the
Parties' Joint Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rt7ft75s from Leagle.com.


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Gibson FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Gibson, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. v. Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00920-PLM-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of individuals on claims against the
      Defendant Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. under the Fair

      Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA):

      "All persons in Michigan for whom Defendant left a voicemail
      message based upon the Script, either prior to or the day
      after sending its initial written communication, within one
      year before the date of this complaint, and in connection
      with the collection of a consumer debt."

   2. appointing him as class representativel and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff is a consumer and Defendant is a debt collector that
was attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that arose out of a
personal credit card (the Debt). On May 9, 2019, in connection with
its effort to collect the Debt, the Defendant called Plaintiff and
left the following voicemail message:

   "We have an important message from Weltman, Weinberg & Reis
Co.,
   LPA. This is a call from a debt collector. Please call 877-330-
   9586 and reference number 40342304 when returning the call.
   Thank you."

The voicemail was the Defendant's initial communication with
Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. While the voicemail informs the
listener that the message is from a "debt collector," it fails to
state that the Defendant was attempting to collect a debt and that
any information obtained would be used for that purpose.

The Defendant included this language in a letter dated May 8, 2019,
but Plaintiff did not receive that letter until several days later.
Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges the voicemail violates Section
1692e(11) of the FDCPA by failing to disclose that the
communication was an attempt to collect a debt and any information
obtained would be used for that purpose.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 9,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zktFKe
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 #492
          Scottsdale, AZ 85259
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

WESTERN NUT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Nut Company.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Western Nut Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-05111 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Western Nut Company -- https://www.westernut.com/ -- is a
gift-giving tradition that makes a lasting impression offering a
wide selection of personalized gifts and custom-made baskets.[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


WYZE LABS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyze Labs, Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Wyze Labs, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05123 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021).

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

Wyze Labs, Inc., also known as Wyze -- https://wyze.com/ -- is a
U.S. company based in Seattle, Washington, that specializes in
smart home products and wireless cameras.[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


ZOOM VIDEO: Agreement Reached in User Privacy Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit relating to the company's alleged
privacy and security practices, reported to the court that they had
reached agreement on certain material terms of a settlement, and
that they intended to complete negotiations, finalize the details
of a settlement, formally memorialize the settlement, and present
the settlement to the Court for approval as expeditiously as
possible.

Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions have
been filed against the company in various U.S. federal district
courts and state courts relating to the company's alleged privacy
and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third
parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions"). The company  had also
been sued under the DC private attorney general statute on behalf
of members of the general public.

The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using our services in certain
time periods.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The federal cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the
NDCA with the company's consent; lead plaintiffs' counsel have been
appointed; and plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated
class action complaint on October 28, 2020.

On March 11, 2021, the Court granted in part, and denied in part,
the company's motion to dismiss, and gave Plaintiffs leave to
amend.

On April 7, 2021, the parties reported to the court that they had
reached agreement on certain material terms of a settlement, and
that they intended to complete negotiations, finalize the details
of a settlement, formally memorialize the settlement, and present
the settlement to the Court for approval as expeditiously as
possible.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 12, 2021.

Pending finalization of the settlement, Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is due June 25, 2021.

Zoom said, "Accordingly, we recorded an aggregate legal settlement
charge of $66.9 million net of amounts estimated to be covered by
insurance as a general and administrative expense in our condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended
April 30, 2021."

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.



                            *********

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 ***