---

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

              Wednesday, June 30, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 124

                            Headlines

ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Suit Takes Over Predatory Pricing Tactics
AMERICAN NATIONAL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN RED CROSS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Retirement Fund Fees
AON INVESTMENTS: Teacher Files Suit Against Investing Consultants

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Class Suit
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Joint Request to Adjourn Settlement Talks OK'd
BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Indigenous People
CANADA: Hundreds of Inuit Could Join Class Action Against Abuse
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $5M Lawsuit Filed on Surfside Building Collapse

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Harper
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Two Class Actions Over Negligence in Explosion
CHICAGO PARKING: Faces Suit Over Parking Meter System Monopoly
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Modifies Class Cert. Scheduling Order
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Suit Seeks to Certify Class
DENVER, CO: Black Lives Matter Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted
DETROIT, MI: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Metris-Shamoon
DILWORTH SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Continued Sexual Abuse
DRIVETIME CAR: Juarez Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Insurer Appeals Class Action Coverage Ruling
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Albelo Loses Class Certification Bid
ETOH MONITORING: Meade Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 20
FACEBOOK INC: July 23 Filing Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Ram 5500 Chassis Cab Trucks

FEDEX GROUND: Hinds Suit Class Cert. Hearing Continued to July 16
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class
FLORIDA REGIONAL: Peng, Fu Win Class Certification Bid
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
GEORGIA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Delayed Unemployment Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Class Action Ruling
HAPPY FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rahmallah Suit Alleges
HARRY'S NURSES: Appeals Denied Motion to Reopen Gayle FLSA Suit

HERCULES TREE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Ray Claims
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Court Enters Case Management Order in Walker Suit
HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Johnson Suit
HOME POINT Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HOME POINT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 20 Deadline

HOME POINT: Schall Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
HUDAPACK METAL: Rule 23 Class & FLSA Collective Get Final OK
ILLINOIS: Prison Staff Sues Over Tolerated Sexual Misconduct
IMEDIA BRANDS: Duffek Slams Termination Sans 60-day Notice
INDUS COMPANIES: Filing of Class Cert. Response Extended to July 2

ISAAC ALKADAA: Caba Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missing Paystubs
JAMES RIVER: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
JEA SENIOR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Changed to March 1, 2022
KIDSEMBRACE LLC: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
KLOECKNER METALS: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by July 16

LOS ANGELES, CA: Anh Van Thai et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
LOUISIANA DOH: Bid to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal Nixed
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Watson Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 12
MARYLAND: Faces Class Suit Over Workers' Pandemic Relief Funds
MARYLAND: Suit Seeks to Block Decision on Pandemic Relief Funds

MCDONALD'S USA: Ries Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Concluded
MERCEDES BENZ: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15
MSNF FOODS: Gazi Suit Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements
MYLAN NV: Summary Judgment Bid Over Antitrust Class Suit Granted

NAATIONAL COLLEGIATE: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trial Victory
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Council Set to Meeting Again After Court Ruling
NATIONAL COUNSELING: Angione Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought
NCAA: Henderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

NCAA: Holland Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Racanelli Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Walker Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NETAPP INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal

NEW YORK CITY: McQueen Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NEW YORK DOC: Must File Reply to Class Status Bid by August 6
NISSAN NORTH: Filing Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought
NOMURA HOLDINGS: European Government Bonds Related Suits Underway
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert Related Deadline Extension Sought

NVR INC: Cossaboom Seeks July 6 Extension to File Reply Brief
OCUGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 16 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
ORACLE CORP: Stockholder Putative Class Suit in California Underway

PACTIV LLC: Court Stays Rodriguez Class Action
PARAGON INC: Rapper 'The Game' Stares Down $12M Joint Class Action
PARKMOBILE LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Schaubach Says
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Bid for Summary Judgment in Plymouth Pending
PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Beverly Class Suit in New York

PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Tank Class Action in New York
PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit in California Underway
PROOFPOINT INC: Kent Files Securities Class Suit Over Merger
PROVENTION BIO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 12 Deadline

QUEENS VILLAGE: Reed, et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class
QVC INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Class Action Filed
RECKITT BENCKISER: To Pay $50M Class Settlement Over False Claims
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 9 Deadline

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sept. 1 Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Sought
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Two Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Scott Cole & Associates Files Data Breach Lawsuit
SKILLZ INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline

SMALLCAKES STEEL: Hathaway Sues Over Withheld Tips
SONY MUSIC: Could Face Sexual Harassment Class Suit in Australia
SOUTHERN THERAPY: Filing of Reply to Class Cert Opposition Extended
SPECTRUM HEALTH: Black Employees Mull Suit Over Systemic Racism
STARBUCKS CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 18, 2022

STATE FARM: Court Modifies Class Certification Briefing Schedule
STATE FARM: Sheldon Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SUBWAY: Fake Tuna Class Action Focuses on Sustainability Claims
SUCOCITRICO CUTRALE: Faces UK Class-Action Lawsuit Over Oligopoly
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline

TARGET CORP: Regular Rate Class Certified in Bowen Labor Suit
TAX RISE: Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing to August 9
TRADER JOE'S: Court Dismisses Amended Consumer Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: To Shift Operations After Ontario Class-Action
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Fighters File Class Action Antitrust Lawsuit

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Filing of Class Cert Bid. Due October 25
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Maryland Class Action
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 27 Deadline
WAL-MART: Kress Seeks to Certify Class of Local Merchants
WELLPET LLC: Filing of Renewed Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2

WESTERN UNION: Must Reply to Radulescu Class Cert. Bid by July 1
WESTERN UNION: Seeks July 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
WOODSTREAM CORP: Filing of Reply in Support of Class Cert. Sought
[*] Michigan Borrowers File Lawsuit Over HELOC Loan Disclosures

                            *********

ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of Marriott
International, Inc. related to the data security incident involving
unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood
Worldwide Resorts, Inc.

On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The complaint alleges negligence by us, and seeks monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a
data security incident involving unauthorized access to the
reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which
was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.

Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood. On October 27, 2020, the court
issued an order largely denying Accenture's motion to dismiss the
claims against the company.

Accenture said, "We continue to believe the lawsuit is without
merit and we will vigorously defend it. At present, we do not
believe any losses from this matter will have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial condition."

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

Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


AMAZON.COM INC: Class Suit Takes Over Predatory Pricing Tactics
---------------------------------------------------------------
By complaint filed in federal court in Seattle, Washington, a
consumer has made known her intentions to sue Amazon.com Inc. for
its allegedly anticompetitive conduct, described as the "abuse [of]
consumers and merchants alike." filing reportedly targets the
e-commerce platform for its role as a digital retailer of both its
own goods and those offered by merchants who sell their products on
Amazon.

The complaint alleges that consumers absorb Amazon's "referral
fees," or commissions charged to third-party sellers by the
platform. In a fair market absent the anticompetitive surcharge,
merchants would charge lower, more competitive prices, the
plaintiff avers.

The complaint notes that Amazon is also a horizontal competitor to
the third-party merchants who sell on its platform. Because their
goods are overpriced due to Amazon's "referral fees," the company
is able to undercut merchants with Amazon-brand products thereby
"vanquishing competition and eliminating consumer freedom to
purchase the goods they seek in a normal functioning market free of
anticompetitive conduct."

In addition, the complaint points to Amazon's pricing policy,
which, in 2019, was the subject of regulatory and legislative
scrutiny. Under the policy, third-party merchants are subject to a
most favored nation (MFN) clause, now known as a "fair pricing
policy," prohibiting sellers from offering their goods on
alternative digital e-commerce channels with terms and prices more
favorable than those offered on Amazon's. This, the filing alleges,
"harms consumers by fixing, stabilizing, or increasing the price of
those same merchants' goods on all platforms including Amazon."

As for the relevant market, the plaintiff asserted that Amazon
holds a monopoly over domestic online retail platforms. In the
alternative, the complaint states that Amazon has monopoly power in
seven submarkets, including home improvement tools, golf,
batteries, and kitchen and dining products.

The plaintiff is seeking to certify a class of consumers who
purchased one or more products through Amazon's platform since May
26, 2017. The complaint alleges a per se violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, and in the alternative, a regular violation
thereof, and counts of attempted monopolization and monopolization
in violation of Section 2.

The consumer and putative class seek monetary relief consisting of
restitution and treble damages, as well as an injunction barring
Amazon from continuing its allegedly anticompetitive conduct. The
plaintiff is represented by Phillips Law Firm PLLC and Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

Notably, the complaint is similar to one filed last year by other
private plaintiffs, and one filed last month by Washington, D.C.
Attorney General Karl Racine. The latter alleges that the
e-commerce giant fixes online retail prices through its contractual
agreements with third-party sellers, creating a price floor. By
imposing those artificially high price minimums across the online
retail marketplace, the company has built and maintains monopoly
power in violation of the District of Columbia's Antitrust Act, the
complaint argues. [GN]

AMERICAN NATIONAL: MSP Recovery Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL GENERAL
INSURANCE CO, and AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Case
No. 1:20-cv-24077-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion for class certification of:

   "All Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream actors (or their
   assignees) that have borne the cost of a conditional payment in

   providing benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States
   of America and its territories, who made payments for a Medicare

   Enrollee's medical expenses where Defendant:

   (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having settled a claim
       with a Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee;

   (2) settled a dispute to pay for medical expenses with a
       Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee; and

   (3) failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream

       actors (or their assignees) for their conditional payments
       upon settling with a Medicare Enrollee."

   This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers,
   directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

   and (b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any
   members of their immediate families.

American National is a group of companies writing a broad array of
insurance products and services and operating in all 50 states.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UQA5kw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          Shayna K. Hudson, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
          serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
          fquesada@msprecoverylawfirm.com
          shudson@msprecoverylawfirm.com

AMERICAN RED CROSS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Retirement Fund Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The NonProfit Times reports that participants in the American Red
Cross (ARC) retirement plan have gone to federal court alleging
retirement fund fees were not kept below market standards and that
returns on investments were subpar. Fund participants claim that
they lost millions of dollars, according to a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

On an individual basis, the average participant's losses due to the
plan's high costs would run to $45,000, it is alleged in the
complaint.

"We don't believe there is any validity to the claims that the
American Red Cross 401(k) plan has been mismanaged," American Red
Cross National Headquarters Vice President, Communications
Elizabeth Penniman wrote to The NonProfit Times via an email. "To
the contrary, we believe that the Red Cross 401(k) plan has been
well managed and provides a valuable benefit to our employees. We
do not believe any litigation against our plan would have any
merit. Plaintiff law firms have been very active in soliciting
participants in company 401(k) plans to pursue litigation against
plans and employers, and this is part of an uptick in litigation in
this area. Many of these lawsuits are without merit."

According to the complaint, the American Red Cross Savings Plan had
a minimum of $894 million under management during the class period,
March 2, 2015 through the date of judgment. At the end of 2018 the
plan had more than $1 billion in assets under management, which had
increased to $1.2 billion by the end of 2019, the complaint
alleges.

It is unclear how much of the increase was due to employee and
employer contributions during the year. According to the complaint,
employees may contribute between 1% and 50% of their annual
contribution on a pretax basis to the plan, with the ARC matching
contributions up to 4% of the employee's compensation. The plan had
no fewer than 22,000 participants at any point during the class
period.

A plan of that size would be considered a "jumbo plan," according
to the complaint, which would give fiduciaries significant leverage
regarding fees and expenses levied against it. The plaintiffs
allege the defendants, including the ARC, its board of governors,
its benefit administration committee and various John Does, neither
attempted to reduce plan expenses nor scrutinized investment
opportunities to ensure they were prudent.

The plaintiffs also claim costs for the Red Cross plan were among
the highest for plans with assets of more than $500 million, and
that these costs increased in 2016 after the defendants changed
administrative service providers, despite fees traditionally
decreasing as economies of scale, vendor competition and
negotiation leverage factors come into play. They further allege
resources were steered into higher-cost branded investment
properties.

The plaintiffs acknowledge they do not have specific knowledge of
the defendants' decision-making process regarding the plan because
that information is in the possession of the defendants and has not
yet been subject to discovery.

The plaintiffs are seeking restoration of what they consider to be
the high administrative fees as well as unrealized profits they
believe they have lost.

Diana F. Tracy, David E. Bagenstose, Jason L. Richard and Stacy M.
Moxley lead the plaintiff class. The plaintiffs are represented by
Christopher Martini Battista of the Law Office of Christopher M.
Battista, Fairfax, Va.; Mark K. Gyandoh and Gabrielle Kelerchian of
Capozzi Adler PC, Merion Station, Pa.; Donald Reavey of Capozzi
Adler PC, Harrisburg, Pa.; Jon Lambiras and Todd S. Collins of
Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia; Daniel J. Walker, of Berger
Montague, Washington, DC and Eric Lechtzin, of Edelson Lechtzin
LLP, Newtown, Pa.

The defendants are represented by Michael Joseph Prame and William
James Delaney of Groom Law Group, Washington, DC.

The case is Tracy et al v. American National Red Cross et al, case
number 1:21-cv-00541-EGS. [GN]

AON INVESTMENTS: Teacher Files Suit Against Investing Consultants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph N. DiStefano at inquirer.com reports that lawyers for a
Delaware County public school teacher have filed a lawsuit over
problems at Pennsylvania's largest pension fund, alleging that poor
advice from highly paid outside consultants has cost the retirement
plan billions and forced 100,000 teachers to pay millions in extra
pension contributions.

The complaint says two consultants were "grossly negligent" in
their dealings with the $67 billion PSERS plan but does not
identify the fund itself as a defendant. Legal experts say the big
retirement plan is generally protected from liability under the
state's Sovereign Immunity Act.

The suit names as defendants Aon Investments USA, of Chicago, and
Hamilton Lane Advisors Inc., a national firm based in Bala Cynwyd.
It also names 812 Market, a company formed by PSERS to hold title
to real estate it has bought near its offices in Harrisburg.
Earlier this month, the fund said it would correct official forms
it had filed stating that its investment staff was being paid by
both PSERS and 812 Market.

Kate McGann, a spokesperson for Hamilton Lane, said it had yet to
be served with the lawsuit. "But based on what we've heard, there
would be no merit in any action against Hamilton Lane," she added.
"We take our fiduciary responsibilities very seriously and would
vigorously defend our reputation, track record, and commitment to
serving our clients."

Aon declined to comment, as did PSERS, the Pennsylvania Public
School Employees' Retirement System.

The lawyers asked Philadelphia Common Pleas Court to accept the
case, initially filed for Kevin Steinke, a middle school teacher in
Springfield Township, as a class-action suit representing about
100,000 other school employees hired since 2011.

Those staff members are to be charged an average of $240 a year
more in pension costs, starting next month. The increase was
triggered when the pension fund acknowledged this spring that its
investment profits had fallen significantly below the plan's
goals.

Under state law, teachers hired after 2011 have to pay more when
returns miss certain targets. The goal is for teachers to share the
pain with taxpayers when investments do poorly. In total, the
increase will drive up the teachers' yearly payments by about $26
million.

The lawsuit draws together into one package a series of issues that
have bedeviled the fund in recent months. The suit cites two issues
- a mistake in the calculation of investment returns and the fund's
purchase of Harrisburg real estate - that are under FBI
investigation.

It also cites reports of luxury travel by investment staff and
complaints by dissident board members that the fund performance has
been dragged down by high-fee, high-risk investments.

In 2017, PSERS gave Hamilton Lane a $7 million, five-year contract
to help find alternative investments not sold on the stock market.
The goal, according to Hamilton Lane's more than 1,000-page
contract, was to achieve "superior" returns compared with ordinary
stocks.

Over the last five years, the fund has also paid $3.5 million to
Aon for "general investment consulting." Its work includes tracking
how well investments have done.

But Aon acknowledged an error in recent work it did in computing a
figure for investment returns. Citing "clerical mistakes at a
data-entry level," Aon said it had come up with an incorrect - and
exaggerated - figure for returns last year. In April, an
embarrassed PSERS board disavowed that result and adopted a new,
lower figure. This reversal led to the increase in teacher pension
payments.

According to the lawsuit, the error exposed "significant structural
problems" with PSERS's investment strategies. Echoing a complaint
from board dissidents, it said those decisions had led to
"significant and traceable losses" from "alternative" investment
vehicles.

Among bets that "any prudent investors would have avoided," the
suit cited investments by Hamilton Lane-approved managers, in
publicly-traded bonds backed by a Kurdistan oil field shortly
before it was seized by the rival Iraqi government, and money put
into Securus Technologies, a prison contractor.

Although PSERS officials approved the investments, the suit does
not identify the agency as a defendant. J.J. Conway, one of three
lawyers representing Steinke, said "it would be premature" to
comment on whether the agency might be added later. The other
plaintiff lawyers are Gerard Mantese, based in Michigan, as is
Conway, and Gregory B. Heller, based in Philadelphia.

Paul Drucker, a Paoli lawyer who battled PSERS several years ago in
a civil action, said that under state laws dating back four
decades, it is hard to pursue a lawsuit against PSERS itself, as it
is an arm of state government. In general, he said, private
lawsuits in many circumstances against PSERS are barred by the
fund's sovereign immunity protection.

The retirement plan has hired the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson to
conduct its own internal investigation of the performance error and
the Harrisburg properties, at a cost of up to $367,500. That
investigation is ongoing.

The agency has also hired teams of defense lawyers headed by
William Sullivan, of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm,
and a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Zane David Memeger, now with Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
to respond to the federal investigation.

Newly public state contracts show the pension agency is paying five
Morgan Lewis partners from $875 to $1,210 an hour. PSERS also
agreed to pay Pillsbury lawyers $495 to $925 an hour.

Those two law contracts have no limit on how much PSERS can spend,
though the firms have agreed to notify the fund every time they
expect to bill $75,000 more. The agency's bylaws say it can spend
up to $40 million defending any one case. [GN]

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith reminds investors of important approaching deadline
regarding a class action lawsuit against Array Technologies, Inc.
for violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of
the below-listed stocks during the referenced time period and want
to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire
or Jason Brodsky, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or
financial obligation to you.

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (NASDAQ:ARRY)

Shares purchased between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021 or
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the October 2020 initial public
offering (the "IPO"), or to the Company's December 2020 offering
(the "December 2020 SPO"), or March 2021 offering (the "March 2021
SPO, and together with the IPO and December 2020 SPO, the
"Offerings")

Deadline: July 13, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period and in
the Offerings, the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the ongoing impact of
various rising costs, including costs related to certain supplies
such as steel, as well as Array's freight costs; and (2) as result
of the foregoing, Array's positive statements about its business
and operations lacked a reasonable basis.

Additional information can be found at
https://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/array-technologies-inc-nasdaq-arry/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise
representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and
class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been
appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as
lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered
millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ARRY) who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Array securities
between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Array common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to: (i) the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO"); or (ii) the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
December 2020 offering (the "December 2020 SPO"); or (iii) the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's March 2021 offering (the "March 2021 SPO"); or (iv) any
combination of the IPO, December 2020 SPO, or March 2021 SPO, of
the important July 13, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Array 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 Array class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2098.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. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than July 13, 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, the offering
documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to adequately disclose the then-existing rise of
costs related to certain supplies such as steel, as well as Array's
freight costs, and that these were likely to have, and were having,
an adverse effect on the Company's business and operations. The
complaint also alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements in press releases and conference calls
because defendants omitted and otherwise failed to disclose that
dating back to Q1 2020, prices of certain commodities such as steel
were increasing dramatically, and that Array was facing increasing
freight costs, and as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Array's business and operations lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Array class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2098.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]

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

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian") (NASDAQ: ATER) between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get
more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17066&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.

Aterian, Inc. NEWS - ATER NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (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.

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

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Aterian securities between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 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/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17066&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]

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Employment Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the employment class action suit filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

On February 15, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees' employment with the Company.

The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20,000,000, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to
appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019.

The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17,
2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019,
and discovery is proceeding.


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

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Discovery Ongoing in Ontario Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit pending before an Ontario Court.

On July 23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the putative Ontario class
action filed a motion for certification and leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims.

On November 16, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, the
Company filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this
ruling.

On January 22, 2016, the Court postponed the hearing on the
plaintiffs' certification motion to an undetermined date after
asking the Company to file a motion to dismiss the claims of the
U.S. plaintiffs for forum non conveniens.

Before that motion was heard, the parties agreed to limit the class
to purchasers who reside in Canada or purchased on the Toronto
Stock Exchange. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the
Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the
plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired.

Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The
Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019, and
discovery is proceeding.

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

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Joint Request to Adjourn Settlement Talks OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the parties' joint
request to adjourn the settlement conference previously scheduled
for May 19, 2021, has been granted.

Between October and December 2013, several purported class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against the Company
and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the
U.S. and Canada alleging that the Company and certain of its
officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's financial condition and business prospects and that
certain of the Company's financial statements contain material
misstatements. The individual lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

On March 14, 2014, the four putative U.S. class actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and on May 27, 2014, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed. On March 13, 2015, the Court issued an
order granting the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and for
leave to file an amended complaint on November 13, 2015. On August
24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the District Court order dismissing the complaint, but vacated the
order denying leave to amend and remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings in connection with the plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on
September 13, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated amended class action complaint, which added the
Company's former Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March
19, 2018. On January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order placing the
case on its suspense calendar but allowed fact and expert discovery
to continue.

On August 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that the Court grant the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing the claims of additional
plaintiffs Cho and Ulug. On September 24, 2019, the District Court
Judge accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed
the claims of Cho and Ulug against all defendants.

On October 17, 2019, Cho and Ulug filed a Notice of Appeal. The
District Court removed the case from its suspense calendar on May
29, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on June
8, 2020, the defendants filed oppositions on August 10, 2020, and
the plaintiffs filed a reply on September 28, 2020.

All discovery was completed as of November 13, 2020. On January 26,
2021, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On February 9, 2021, the defendants filed a Rule
23(f) petition for interlocutory review of the class certification
order with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Rule 23(f) petition
on June 23, 2021. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court judgment dismissing Cho and Ulug's claims on March
11, 2021, and denied Cho and Ulug's petition for panel rehearing
and rehearing en banc on April 28, 2021.

On April 19, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and both parties filed Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of
the oppositions' marketing and accounting experts. Both sides filed
oppositions to these motions on June 21, 2021; reply briefs are due
July 19, 2021.

On May 5, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation with the
Hon. Layn Phillips (ret.), which did not result in an agreement.

On May 11, 2021, the Magistrate Judge granted the parties' joint
request to adjourn the settlement conference previously scheduled
for May 19, 2021.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments around the world. The
company secures more than 500 million endpoints including 150
million cars. Based in Waterloo, Ontario, the company leverages
artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver innovative
solutions in the areas of cybersecurity, safety and data privacy,
and is a leader in the areas of endpoint security management,
encryption, and embedded systems.


BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Binder Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Binder, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Brentlinger
Enterprises, d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group, Case No.
2:21-cv-00136-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court,
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
to enter an order

   1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
      action under Section 216(b) against Defendant on behalf of
      Named Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals;

   2. implementing an Opt-In period of 90 days whereby Court-
      approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent via U.S.
      mail and e-mail to:

      "All of Defendant's current and former hourly non-exempt
      porters and technicians who worked at the Dublin, Ohio
      location and whose payroll records reflect that they worked
      40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years
      preceding the instant Motion and continuing to the present,
      and who were subject to either of the following policies: (1)

      who were clocked out for any breaks consisting of 19 minutes

      or less in duration; and/or (2) who were clocked out for meal

      periods of 20 to 30 minutes in duration, but the employee did

      not take or which were interrupted by work duties
      ("216(b) Class" or "Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs");

   3. approving the content contained in the proposed Notice and
      Consent to Join;

   4. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing

      a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      addresses, phone numbers, dates of employment, position(s)
      held, location(s) of worksite, and e-mail addresses of all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at any
      time from the three years preceding the filing of this Motion

      through the present; and

   5.  directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be

      sent to the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within 14 days of
      receipt of the list using the home and email addresses
      provided by Defendant.

On January 13, 2021, the Plaintiff Binder filed his collective and
class action complaint against Brentlinger. In his complaint, he
seeks all available relief under the FLSA, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for the Defendant's
failure to pay the Named Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals for all overtime wages earned as required by the FLSA.


Brentlinger Enterprises manufactures automobile.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x1EDTr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Laren E. Knoll, Esq.
          THE KNOLL LAW FIRM, LLC
          7240 Muirfield Drive, Suite 120
          Dublin, Ohio 43017
          Telephone: (614) 372-8890
          Facsimile: (614) 452-4850
          E-mail: lknoll@knolllaw.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

CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Abuse of Indigenous People
----------------------------------------------------------------
aptnnews.ca reports that a lawsuit alleging RCMP systematically
brutalized Indigenous people in Northern Canada can proceed as a
class action despite objections from the government, Federal Court
ruled on.

In her decision, Judge Glennys McVeigh rejected the government's
arguments that the proposed suit failed to meet the legal grounds
for certification although individuals could sue on their own, and
that the claim had no prospect of success.

"I disagree with Canada's characterization of these claims as
individual," McVeigh wrote. "The claims do not ask if an RCMP
officer illegally assaulted a class member, but rather whether the
operations of the RCMP create a system where illegal assaults
happen."

The untested claim, initially filed in 2018, seeks $600 million in
various damages. Among other things, it alleges the federal
government negligently failed to stop what it characterizes as
routine police assaults on Aboriginal people who comprise the
majority in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon.

The claim asserts systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and
constitutional violations. The government, it says, has known about
the issues for years but has failed to substantively address the
problem.

"Aboriginal persons are frequently arrested, detained or held in
custody by RCMP officers in the territories on the basis of their
race, ethnic and/or national origin," the claim states.

"RCMP officers and other agents of the RCMP regularly discriminate
against Aboriginal persons by employing excessive and unnecessary
force, by arresting or detaining Aboriginal persons for no reason,
and by using hateful speech and language in the course of policing
in the territories."

The claim, which names the attorney general as defendant on behalf
of the RCMP, alleges common incidents involve officers beating,
pepper-spraying, shooting and verbally abusing Indigenous people.

The representative plaintiff is a high school student, Joe David
Nasogaluak, now 19, of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., who claims RCMP
arrested and assaulted him without cause or provocation in November
2017. Among other things, he alleges officers punched and choked
him, used a stun gun on him, and used derogatory slurs. He was
released to his mother shortly after.

"As a result of this assault, Mr. Nasogaluak sustained physical and
psychological harm," the claim asserts. "Incidents like the above
take place ordinarily in the territories."

In affidavits, other potential class members similarly described
experiences of racism and RCMP violence when being detained and
arrested.

A year ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the RCMP had a
problem with systemic racism after Commissioner Brenda Lucki denied
racism was entrenched within the organization. Those comments came
after video emerged showing Mounties wrestling the chief of an
Alberta First Nation to the ground in a parking lot.

In certifying the action, McVeigh noted the plaintiff's assertion
that class members had a reasonable expectation Canada would run
its RCMP detachment in the North in the same way it runs policing
of non-Indigenous people.

Members of the class, McVeigh decided, comprise all Indigenous
people who allege being assaulted at any time while in RCMP custody
or detention in the territories, and were alive as of December 18,
2016.

"I do not agree that Canada's claim that a public inquiry or
internal complaint process would be preferable procedure," McVeigh
said.

Nevertheless, the judge said, the plaintiffs still have to prove
their claims at trial which is "far from an easy hurdle."

Because the plaintiff was a minor when he sued, his mother acted as
a litigation guardian. McVeigh said Nasogaluak, now a legal adult,
must get court permission to substitute his name for his mother's
on the claim but appeared perfectly capable of acting as
representative plaintiff. [GN]

CANADA: Hundreds of Inuit Could Join Class Action Against Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Rogers at nunatsiaq.com reports that a lawyer representing
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the RCMP for excessive
force expects hundreds of Inuit to join the claim now that it's
been certified.

In her decision, federal court Justice Glennys McVeigh said she
disagreed with the government's argument that plaintiffs' claims of
police brutality were individual.

"The claims do not ask if an RCMP officer illegally assaulted a
class member, but rather whether the operations of the RCMP create
a system where illegal assaults happen," McVeigh wrote.

"After this has been established, then it can be determined whether
a particular class member was a victim of this system."

The lawsuit alleges that Indigenous people are frequently arrested,
detained and abused by RCMP officers in the Northwest Territories,
Nunavut and Yukon on the basis of their race.

It also alleges the federal government has been "systemically
negligent" in its funding, oversight and operation of its RCMP
detachments and its officers, who it alleges have routinely used
excessive force on Indigenous Peoples in those three territories.

Steven Cooper, one of the lawyers representing plaintiffs, said it
remains unclear just how many class action members there are, but
adds that number is likely to grow in the coming months.

"People are very reluctant to come forward until a claim is
certified or the claim is settled and there is something for which
to apply," Cooper said.

"We've all seen the video-recorded events in places like Iqaluit
and Kinngnait," he said. "The best I can tell you is that I have
little doubt that this is the tip of the iceberg.

"Myself and my colleagues have been hearing about these types of
events for decades and I expect that we will be dealing in the
hundreds [of class members] in Nunavut alone."

The original plaintiff, Joe David Nasogaluak, is Inuvialuit from
Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. He alleges that when he was 15
years old, the RCMP assaulted him during an arrest and held him in
police custody.

Nasogaluak is seeking $600,000 in damages.

One class member, Willie Aglukkaq, is a Dene man who grew up in an
adoptive family in Gjoa Haven. In a 2019 affidavit filed as
evidence in the lawsuit, Aglukkaq recounted a series of violent
encounters with Nunavut RCMP officers.

"I have been assaulted by RCMP officers almost too many times to
count," Aglukkaq wrote, saying the first time was when he was just
11.

Aglukkaq recalled one incident in 1990 when he was attending a
hockey game in Gjoa Haven and an RCMP officer arrested him and a
friend.

"I wasn't doing anything wrong and he didn't tell me why I was
being arrested," Aglukkaq alleged. "He handcuffed me so tightly
that my wrists were badly bruised."

Aglukkaq alleged that he was held in the RCMP detachment overnight,
where officers beat him repeatedly and strangled him until he
almost passed out.

"It was a terrifying and traumatic experience for me," he wrote. "I
believe, based on my interaction with the RCMP, that they treat me
differently because I am Indigenous."

Justice McVeigh defined members of the class action as comprising
all Indigenous people who were born before Dec. 18, 2016, and who
allege incidents of assault while in RCMP custody or detention in
the territories.

Nasogaluak was a minor when he first launched the lawsuit in 2018,
so his mother acted as his litigation guardian. Now that he's a
legal adult, Nasogaluak must get the court's permission to put his
own name on the claim. [GN]

CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: $5M Lawsuit Filed on Surfside Building Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
islandernews.com reports that less than 24-hours after the partial
building collapse in Surfside, a class action lawsuit was filed
against the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association.

"Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
consumers, seeks to recover damages, equitable relief, restitution,
disgorgement, reasonable costs and attorney fees, and all other
remedies this Court deems proper."

The complaint was filed electronically at 11:29 p.m. in the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Complex Litigation Division
on behalf of Manuel Drezner "for themselves and on behalf of those
similarly situated."

The lawsuit was filed by the Brad Shohn Law Firm and seeks
"aggregate" damages of $5 million.

A copy of the lawsuit published on the WPLG Channel 10, Miami,
website, said the condominium association failed to "secure and
safeguard the lives and property" of those who live at the
building.

"According to public statements made by Defendant's attorney Ken
Direktor, 'repair needs had been identified' with regard to certain
structural issues but had not been implemented; one of the most
breathtakingly frightening tragedies in the history of South
Florida followed."

There were still 99 people unaccounted for. First responders worked
through the night in the rubbles in what is still a search and
rescue mission. Next official update is scheduled soon. [GN]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Harper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb
entered an order granting stipulation and joint request to modify
scheduling order as follows.

             Event                Current date    Modified  date
                                    deadline         deadline

   Deadline for Charter to        July 9, 2021     July 9, 2021
   answer, move, or otherwise
   respond to the Second
   Amended Complaint.
   If Charter files a motion,
   the briefing and hearing
   schedule shall be the same
   as Charter's Motions to
   Compel Arbitration

   Deadline for Charter to        N/A              July 9, 2021
   (i) withdraw without
   prejudice and re-file or
   (ii) file a notice resetting
   the hearing on its Motion
   to Compel Arbitration of
   Harper's Individual Claims
   and Stay Action for hearing
   on October 4, 2021 at 1:30pm,
   and for Plaintiffs to (I)
   withdraw without prejudice
   and re-file or (ii) file a
   notice resetting the hearing
   on their Renewed Motion for
   Class Certification for
   October 4, 2021 at 1:30pm

   Deadline for Charter to        N/A              August 6, 2021
   File a Motion to Compel
   Arbitration of Plaintiffs
   Turner's, Vazquez's, and
   Abascal's Individual Claims
   and Stay Action

   Deadline for Plaintiffs to                     August 30, 2021
   file briefs in opposition
   to Charter’s Motions to
   Compel Arbitration, and
   for Charter to file a brief
   in opposition to Plaintiffs'
   Renewed Motion for Class
   Certification

   Discovery cut-off             Aug. 30, 2021    Feb. 7, 2022

   Motions cut-off               Sept. 20, 2021   Feb. 28, 2022
  (for filing)

   Deadline to file              Oct. 18, 2021    March 28, 2022
   opposition briefs

   Deadline to file reply        Nov. 15, 2021    April 11, 2022
   briefs

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

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UIOP4N at no extra charge.[CC]

CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of ChemoCentryx, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CCXI).

Shareholders who purchased shares of CCXI during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17054&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: November 26, 2019 to May 6, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the study design of the Phase
III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about the interpretability of
the trial data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of
avacopan and its role in the management of ANCA-associated
vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised
serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3) these issues presented a
substantial concern regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's New
Drug Application ("NDA") for avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

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]

CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Two Class Actions Over Negligence in Explosion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Kolkey, writing for Rockford Register Star, reports that
Chemtool Inc. is facing multiple lawsuits accusing the company of
negligence after a massive industrial fire forced residents in a
one-mile radius around the plant to evacuate.

At least three lawsuits, two seeking class action status, have
already been filed representing residents living near the Prairie
Hill Road facility where the Rockton-based company manufactured
grease and lubricants.

It burned for days after a fiery explosion sent debris raining down
on neighborhoods in the vicinity and created columns of smoke that
could be seen from miles away.

One suit filed on behalf of Rockford attorney Tamika R. Walker and
Winnebago County Sheriff's Deputy Charles K. Grasley, both of whom
live near the plant, accuses Chemtool of negligence because of its
failure to prevent the explosion "that caused a massive toxic smoke
and dust plume."

"Chemtool had a duty to apply a level of care commensurate with the
foreseeable harm arising from its operations in producing fluids,
lubricants and grease products and the storage of lead, antifreeze,
and sulfuric acid among other chemicals," the lawsuit reads. "This
encompasses a duty to ensure that a massive chemical fire would not
occur, damaging the environment and individuals and business owners
nearby."

The suit filed by Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil of Geneva and
Williams McCarthy of Rockford seeks unspecified damages.

Also seeking class action status is a lawsuit filed by The Collins
Law Firm of Naperville on behalf of Watts Avenue residents
Stephanie Mackey and Nick Migliore in addition to "all others
similarly situated."

It also accuses Chemtool and its parent company, Wickliffe,
Ohio-based, Lubrizol Corp., of negligence and says the companies
"failed to exercise the reasonable care that would have prevented
the explosion."

Attorney Edward Manzke said that if granted class action status all
those affected within a three-mile radius and advised to wear masks
and turn off air conditioning during the fire could be part of the
suit.

Manzke said if there are multiple lawsuits seeking class action
status, a judge may have to choose which one proceeds or look for a
way to combine them into a single lawsuit.

"We look forward to representing the residents and business owners
who have been severely impacted by the explosion at the Chemtool
plant and hope to recover for them everything that they have lost
as a result of this disaster," Manzke said.

A third lawsuit was filed on June 21 on behalf of Jolene Smith and
Thomas Henry of Rockton by Meyers and Flowers of St. Charles and
Clark Frost Zucchi of Rockford. That suit makes no mention of class
action status.

Lubrizol's response
Chemtool and Lubrizol won't comment on pending litigation, but they
are doing what they can to support and reimburse residents for
their expenses related to the fire and evacuation, Alicia Gauer,
Lubrizol senior director for global communications, said in an
email to The Rockford Register Star.

Gauer said the companies have made donations to the Northwestern
Illinois Red Cross, the Northern Illinois Food Bank and the Rockton
Lions Club. They have also offered to assist residents with the
removal of debris. Service requests can be made and financial
reimbursement forms can be found on their website at
Lubrizol.com/Rockton.

"While we do not comment on legal matters, I can again reiterate
that we are devastated by this event and deeply regret the
disruption and inconvenience that is has caused area residents,"
Gauer said in the email. 

What started the fire at the grease and lubricant manufacturing
plant at 1165 Prairie Hill Road remains under investigation.

Authorities said clean-up operations are continuing along with the
monitoring of air and water quality. [GN]


CHICAGO PARKING: Faces Suit Over Parking Meter System Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Schuba at chicago.suntimes.com reports that a potential class
action lawsuit filed against the private company that operates
Chicago's sprawling parking meter system alleges its exclusive
contract with the city amounts to an "unreasonable 75-year
monopoly."

The complaint, filed in federal court in Chicago, holds that
Chicago Parking Meters' lengthy deal with the city has resulted in
increased parking rates and restrictions on other forms of travel,
like bicycles and ride-hailing.

"The City of Chicago granted CPM, a private party, monopoly control
over the City's parking meter system for an astonishing
75-year-long period, without regard for the changes in technology
and innovations in transportation taking place now and for the rest
of the century, without regard for the rapidly changing consumer
needs and preferences for different types of transportation, and
without regard for changes in transportation resulting from climate
change and the imperative need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,"
the suit claims.

Three drivers aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America
brought the suit, which seeks class action status on behalf of
other motorists who have paid to use the ParkChicago machines
operated by CPM, a Delaware-based venture that counts Morgan
Stanley, Allianz Capital Partners and the Abu Dhabi Investment
Authority as its backers.

CPM didn't respond to a request for comment. Neither did an
attorney for the plaintiffs.

In 2008, the City Council approved former Mayor Richard M. Daley's
proposal to lease the meter system to CPM for 75 years. The
following year, the city transferred control of 36,000 meters to
the company in exchange for $1.16 billion.

Though many Chicago drivers maligned the deal, the city entered
into an amended agreement in 2013 under then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
That agreement offered free parking in neighborhoods, allowed
drivers to pay with their cellphones and revised meter times in
some areas.

On its website, CPM touts some of those changes and claims its
parking system is the nation's third largest.

The suit, however, claims the "rates for parking have more than
doubled" under CPM. In 2008, prior to the start of the contract,
the city was collecting just under $24 million in annual parking
meter rates. But in 2019, the company collected nearly $139 million
in annual meter rates, according to the lawsuit.

By the end of that year, the suit claims the firm had already made
$500 million more than its initial $1.16 billon investment.

The lawsuit holds that CPM's agreement bars the city from
regulating the firm's parking rates and prevents bidding with
competitors that "could provide the same services for a smaller
number of meters and in a manner that is environmentally safe and
consistent with consumer needs and preferences." The agreement also
allegedly placed "special restrictions" on other forms of
transportation, like bikes, ride-hailing, public transit "and the
onset of driverless cars."

The suit claims the deal with the city violates both federal
antitrust laws and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The initial filing seeks class action
status, unspecified monetary damages, the payment of legal fees and
other relief. [GN]

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith reminds investors of important approaching deadline
regarding a class action lawsuit against ContextLogic, Inc. for
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased the
below-listed stocks during the referenced time period and want to
discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or
Jason Brodsky, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or
financial obligation to you.

CONTEXTLOGIC, INC. (NASDAQ:WISH)

Shares purchased between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, or
pursuant or traceable to ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial
public stock offering ("IPO")

Deadline: July 16, 2021

According to the filed complaint, the defendants failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts that existed at the
time of the IPO: (1) ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 monthly
active users ("MAUs") had declined materially and were not then
growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants
materially overstated ContextLogic's business metrics and financial
prospects.

Additional information can be found at
https://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/contextlogic-inc-nasdaq-wish/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise
representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and
class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been
appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as
lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered
millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith reminds investors of important approaching deadline
regarding a class action lawsuit against ContextLogic, Inc. for
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of the
below-listed stock during the referenced time period and want to
discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or
Jason Brodsky, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or
financial obligation to you.

CONTEXTLOGIC, INC. (NASDAQ:WISH)

Shares purchased between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, or
pursuant or traceable to ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial
public stock offering ("IPO")

Deadline: July 16, 2021

According to the filed complaint, the defendants failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts that existed at the
time of the IPO: (1) ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 monthly
active users ("MAUs") had declined materially and were not then
growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants
materially overstated ContextLogic's business metrics and financial
prospects.

Additional information can be found at
https://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/contextlogic-inc-nasdaq-wish/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise
representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and
class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been
appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as
lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered
millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Contextlogic Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

WISH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17123&wire=1

Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased WISH pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public
stock offering or between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 16, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17123&wire=1

In the registration statement and prospectus used to conduct the
initial public offering and throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about the strength
of ContextLogic's business operations and financial prospects by
overstating its then-present monthly active users ("MAUs") and MAU
growth trends.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]

CREDIT BUREAU: Court Modifies Class Cert. Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered a scheduling order
re Motion for Class Certification as follows:

              Event                 Current Date     Continued
                                                       Date

-- Re-Noticing the Motion for      June 30, 2021     July 14, 2021
   Class Certification and
   Filing Supplemental
   Briefing

-- Opposition to the Motion        July 30, 2021     Aug. 11, 2021
   for Class Certification

-- Reply Brief in Support of       Aug. 20, 2021     Sept. 1, 2021
   the Motion for Class
   Certification

-- Hearing on the Motion           Sept. 13, 2021    Sept. 27,
2021
   for Class Certification

-- Further Scheduling              Nov. 9, 2021      Dec. 2, 2021
   Conference

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35Y4MGH at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          P.O. Box 1311
          Monterrey CA 93942
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith reminds investors of important approaching deadline
regarding a class action lawsuit against Danimer Scientific, Inc.
for violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased any of
the below-listed stock during the referenced time period and want
to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire
or Jason Brodsky, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or
financial obligation to you.

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC, INC., f/k/a Live Oak Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:DNMR)

Shares purchased between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021

Deadline: July 13, 2021

According to the filed complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the defendants overstated and/or misstated the
biodegradability and environmentally-friendly nature of its Nodax
product; (2) the defendants misrepresented the size of Danimer's
facilities, production capacity and actual production amounts, and
costs; (3) the defendants misrepresented Danimer's growth,
financial results, and financial projections; (4) Danimer had
deficient internal controls; and (5) as a result, Danimer's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Additional information can be found at
https://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/danimer-scientific-inc-f-k-live-oak-acquisition-corp-nyse-dnmr/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise
representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and
class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been
appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as
lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered
millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Danimer Scientific,
Inc. (NYSE: DNMR).

Shareholders who purchased shares of DNMR during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17067&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: October 5, 2020 to May 4, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

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]

DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Akeem Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA AKEEM, ET AL. v.
DASMEN RESIDENTIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-13650-BWA-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a class of:

   "All persons who sustained damage through hazardous conditions,
   including, but not limited to, exposure to water intrusion
   and/or exposure to fungal substances such as mold and mold
   spores which were growing on building materials and were
   released into the air of the following apartment complexes in
   New Orleans: Hidden Lakes/Laguna Run, Lakewind East/Laguna
   Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna Creek, Chenault Creek/Carmel Brooks

   and Wind Run/Carmel Springs, from December 13, 2007 1 to the
   present, and who meet any one of the following criteria:

   1. You currently and/or formerly resided and/or had an
      employment relationship with (meaning reported to work at)
      the apartment complexes known as Hidden Lakes/Laguna Run,
      Lakewind East/Laguna Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna Creek,
      Chenault Creek/Carmel Brooks; and Wind Run/Carmel Springs,
      from December 13, 2007 through December 13, 2017, and you
      allege damages from hazardous conditions, including, but not

      limited to, water intrusion and/or exposure to fungal
      substances such as mold and mold spores which were growing on

      building materials and were released into the air.

   2. You currently and/or formerly resided and/or had an
      employment relationship with (meaning reported to work at)
      the apartment complexes known as Hidden Lakes/Laguna Run,
      Lakewind East/Laguna Reserve, Copper Creek/Laguna Creek,
      Chenault Creek/Carmel Brooks, and Wind Run/Carmel Springs,
      after December 13, 2017 to the present, and you allege
      damages from hazardous conditions including, but not limited

      to, water intrusion and/or exposure to fungal substances such

      as mold and mold spores which were growing on building
      materials and were released into the air.

In their pleadings, the Plaintiffs allege personal injuries and
economic losses resulting from the ruin of the buildings due to
neglectful property ownership and property management which caused
them exposures to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, including, but
not limited to, widespread water intrusion and mold. Particularly,
plaintiffs allege that they have suffered inter alia, headaches,
respiratory infections, sore throat, body aches, flu-like symptoms,
itching, and increases in allergy reactions caused by their
exposures to mold, mold spores, and mold by-products during their
occupancy of the apartment complexes.

Dasmen Residential is a privately held real estate investment firm
that owns and operates multi-family properties in major cities
throughout the US.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 25,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjaLh5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suzette P. Bagneris, Esq.
          Emile A. Bagneris, III, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810-3995
          Facsimile: (504) 336-2198
          E-mail: sbagneris @bagnerislawfirm.com
                  Ebagneris @bagnerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          DeVonn Jarrett, Esq.
          JARRETT LAW GROUP
          643 Magazine Street, Suite 301 A
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 491-6806
          E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Walter J. Leger, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Landry, Esq.
          LEGER & SHAW
          935 Gravier Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 588-9043
          Facsimile: (504) 588-9980
          E-mail: wleger@legershaw.com
                  Mlandry @legershaw.com

DENVER, CO: Black Lives Matter Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER 5280,
DR. APRYL ALEXANDER, ELISABETH EPPS, ASHLEE WEDGEWORTH, AMANDA
BLASINGAME, PHILLIP ROTHLEIN, ZACH PACKARD, HOLLIS LYMAN, CIDNEY
FISK, and STANFORD SMITH, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-100, JANE BOES 1-50, DANIEL FELKINS in his individual
capacity, a Case No. 1:20-cv-01878-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
R. Brooke Jackson entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Fitouri plaintiff's motion as follows:

   1. The Court does not certify any of the five Direct Force
      Classes.

   2. The Court certifies the Arrest Class. Its scope is defined as

      follows: Those persons who were present at or during the
      protests in downtown Denver, Colorado, from May 30, 2020
      through June 5, 2020, who were arrested for violation of
      emergency curfew (D.R.M.C. 1-13), and in some cases were also

      arrested on an accompanying charge of failure to obey a
      lawful order (D.R.M.C. 38-31(c)), who were taken into police

      custody and detained for some period of time, but who were
      not charged with any other violations, and whose charges were

      dismissed.

   3. The Court appoints Elizabeth Wang and Makeba Rutahindurwa of

      Loevy & Loevy as class counsel.

   4. The Court requests that the parties submit a joint notice to

      potential class members by July 19, 2021. If the parties are

      unable to agree on a joint notice, they are instructed to
      inform the Court by that same date.

This case involves the allegedly unconstitutional use of force and
unconstitutional arrests of individuals who peacefully protested
the killing of George Floyd in late May and early June 2020. There
are multiple groups of plaintiffs who bring claims against the City
and County of Denver, particularly the Denver Police Department, as
well as individual officers and government officials. One group,
known as the "Fitouri plaintiffs," brought its claims as a putative
class action. The Fitouri plaintiffs move to certify six different
classes. The Court held a hearing on the motion for class
certification on June 25, 2021. After considering the parties'
briefs, evidence, and arguments at the hearing, the motion is
granted in part and denied in part.

In their motion the Fitouri plaintiffs outlined their six proposed
classes as follows:

-- Direct Force Class 1: Protesters (1) present on May 28, 2020;
   (2) at N. Washington and E. Colfax Ave. or adjacent areas; (3)
   between 8:20 pm and 8:50 pm; (4) who did not pose an immediate
   or specific safety threat to police or others; and (5) who were

   shot by police with projectiles or inhaled aerosolized chemical

   agents.

-- Direct Force Class 2: Protesters (1) present on May 28, 2020;
   (2) at E. 14th Ave. And Sherman St. or adjacent areas; (3)
   between 8:45 pm and 9:00 pm; (4) who did not pose an immediate
   or specific safety threat to police or others; and (5) who were

   shot by police with projectiles or inhaled aerosolized chemical

   agents.

-- Direct Force Class 3: Protesters (1) present on May 30, 2020;
   (2) at the parking lot at the north intersection of 16th St. and

   Welton St. or adjacent areas; (3) between 4:40 pm and 4:55 pm;
   (4) who did not pose an immediate or specific safety threat to
   police or others; and (5) who were shot by police with
   projectiles or inhaled aerosolized chemical agents.

-- Direct Force Class 4: Protesters (1) present on May 30, 2020;
   (2) at Lincoln St. and E. Colfax Ave. or adjacent areas; (3)
   between 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm; (4) who did not pose an immediate
   or specific safety threat to police or others; and (5) who were

   shot by police with projectiles or inhaled chemical aerosolized

   agents.

-- Direct Force Class 5: Protesters (1) present on May 31, 2020;
   (2) at E. Colfax between Pennsylvania and Logan or adjacent
   areas; (3) between 9:30 pm and 9:45 pm; (4) who did not pose an

   immediate or specific safety threat to police or others; and (5)

   who were shot by police with projectiles or inhaled aerosolized

   chemical agents.

-- Arrest Class: Protesters who (1) between May 30 and June 5,
   2020; (2) were arrested for violation of D.R.M.C. 1-13
   (emergency curfew) or D.R.M.C. 38-31(c) (failure to obey lawful

   order); (3) were not charged with any other violations; and (4)

   whose charges were dismissed.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y83sgm
at no extra charge.[CC]

DETROIT, MI: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Metris-Shamoon
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA METRIS-SHAMOON, ET
AL ., v. CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL ., Case No. 2:18-cv-13683-AJT-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that:

   1. the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
      granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as

      to the Plaintiffs' claims against the individual officers. It

      is denied as to Plaintiffs' Monell claim against the City of

      Detroit.

   2. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

   3. Within thirty days, the Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended

      Complaint.

This case stems from the September 13, 2012, raid of Plaintiffs'
homegrown medical marijuana business by members of the now defunct
Detroit Police Department (DPD) Narcotics Unit. The Plaintiffs
initially brought claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
via 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging both individual and
institutional liability. The Plaintiffs have since dropped their
Fourteenth Amendment claim and have agreed to dismissal of several
DPD Defendants. What remain are Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim
against Sgt. Stephen Geelhood and Plaintiffs' municipal liability
claim against the City of Detroit.

Detroit is the largest city in the midwestern state of Michigan.
Near Downtown, the neoclassical Detroit Institute of Arts is famed
for the Detroit Industry Murals painted by Diego Rivera, and
inspired by the city's ties to the auto industry, giving it the
nickname "Motor City."

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

DILWORTH SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Continued Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
rnz.co.nz reports that two survivors of sexual abuse at Auckland's
Dilworth School say it should face repercussions for allowing the
abuse of children to continue for three decades.

They've filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, and
they're asking other survivors to join in.

Neil Harding is a survivor of sexual abuse at Dilworth, and one of
the two men launching the class action.

He said after analysing over the past few months, the Human Rights
Commission was the right place to take this case.

" . . . due to the fact that Dilworth knowingly failed to protect
boys in its care and perpetuated a culture of sexual abuse for over
30 years."

He said he would be looking for compensation.

"It's part of a restitution redress process, I mean it's just about
natural justice and following those principles really."

He said the argument was more than not being protected at the boys
school.

"It's not that Dilworth didn't conduct proper investigations into
reported . . . instances of sexual abuse, it's that they actively
covered it up.

"In fact, boys were punished . . . for lying. There was a culture
of violence of fear and of silence and we have seen instances, many
instances, where the school knew what was going on but chose to,
effectively . . . the reputation of Dilworth was more important
than their duty of care and responsibility to the boys, and they
failed in that."

Already 11 men have been charged as part of a police investigation
into sexual abuse allegations at Dilworth.

"This isn't just about the perpetrators - a lot of them are about
to go to the High Court next year. This is Dilworth's part.

"Three-and-a-half years ago I approached Dilworth Trust Board
looking to find personal peace and healing through working
collaboratively with Dilworth on redoing that child safety policy
and developing a pathway for dealing with historical abuse.

"In the process of doing that I discovered things that showed that
Dilworth knew what was going on and there had been this cover-up."

He said under Operation Beverly there were 122 old boys that had
complained to the police.

Harding appealed to all former students who wanted justice to join
him in the class action. There's a website with more information.

He said all the lawyers were working pro-bono on the case. [GN]


DRIVETIME CAR: Juarez Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ramon Juarez filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Juarez v. Drivetime Car Sales Company, LLC,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01132-BJD-JRK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged breach of
contract.

Mr. Juarez is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated June 1,
2021, granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Ramon Juarez v. Drivetime Car
Sales Company, LLC, Case No. 21-11972, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on June 8, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before July 19, 2021;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on June
22, 2021 as to Appellant Ramon Juarez; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before July 6, 2021 as to Appellee Drivetime Car Sales Company,
LLC. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RAMON JUAREZ, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bambi Lynn Drysdale, Esq.
          JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL AID, INC.
          126 W Adams St
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 355-5200

               - and -

          Matthew Peterson, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Erika Roxanne Willis, Esq.  
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          1101 E Cumberland Ave Ste 201H #105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

Defendant-Appellee DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Corporation d.b.a. Drivetime, is represented by:

          John Philip Gaset, Esq.
          Robert E. Sickles, Esq.  
          DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
          201 N Franklin St Ste 3050
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 543-9848
          E-mail: robert.sickles@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Anthony C. Kaye, Esq.
          Meredith J. Risati, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          201 S Main St
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 531-3000
          E-mail: risatim@ballardspahr.com

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Insurer Appeals Class Action Coverage Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co. has
urged a North Carolina federal court to grant its bid for
interlocutory appeal, saying the court misread policy language by
holding that it must face Duke University's suit seeking coverage
for two underlying antitrust class actions alleging the university
suppressed faculty wages. [GN]





EPIC LANDSCAPE: Albelo Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO,
o/b/o himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC
LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 4:17-cv-00454-DGK (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Greg Kays entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification of:

   "a group of current and former landscape laborers who worked
for
   the Defendant Epic Landscape Productions, LC."

The Court said, "There is similarly no common question of law or
fact with respect to unjust enrichment claims. The Plaintiff's
argument is that because Epic agreed in government filings to pay
its H-2B workers overtime, Epic should have to pay its other
workers overtime as well, and since Epic did not pay its non-H-2B
workers overtime pay means Epic was unjustly enriched by these
workers. But whether Epic was enriched at the expense of its
non-H-2B workers is a question that, by definition, applies to only
part of the class, the non H-2B workers. Thus, there is no common
question here. Because Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of
demonstrating the requirements for class certification are met, the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is denied."

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

Epic provides lawn care and landscaping for clients in Kansas and
Missouri. Epic employs, among other workers, temporary laborers
from Mexico, using the H-2B visa program, as well as laborers from
Puerto Rico and the Kansas City area.

As part of the H-2B program, Epic filed forms with the federal
government. In these forms, Epic made representations about the
wage rate it would pay its workers, including whether it would
workers overtime and at what rate. In making these applications,
Epic never indicated that the H-2B workers would not receive
overtime compensation. Epic contends it was exempt from having to
pay these workers overtime compensation pursuant to the Motor
Carrier Act ("MCA") exception.

The Plaintiff Albelo, allegedly worked 80-100 hours per week as a
landscape laborer from approximately February 2016 through
approximately August 2016. During his employment, Epic never paid
him any overtime premium.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x6tJeX at no extra charge.[CC]


ETOH MONITORING: Meade Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAKEEM MEADE and MARSHALL
SOOKRAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ETOH MONITORING, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01455-CJB-DM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl J.
Barbier entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for an extension of time to move for class certification on or
before August 20, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hlX26S at no extra charge.[CC]


FACEBOOK INC: July 23 Filing Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAYTON P. ZELLMER v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01880-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate and ask the Court to enter an order that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due on
or
      before July 23, 2021;

   -- Facebook's response to Plaintiff's Motion shall be due on or

      before August 23, 2021; and

   -- Zellmer's reply in further support of his Motion shall be
due
      on or before September 13, 2021.

On March 29, 2021, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order
establishing a deadline of July 7, 2021 to file a motion for class
certification. The hearing on Facebook's Motion for Summary
Judgment is currently scheduled for July 8, 2021, the day following
the current Motion deadline. The current Motion deadline and
Summary Judgment Hearing follow the July 4th holiday during which
Plaintiff's counsel will be traveling.

The Parties wish to set a briefing schedule that provides
additional time for Facebook's response in opposition to, and
Plaintiff's reply in support of the Motion. The parties have agreed
to set the deadline for Facebook's opposition to the Motion to
August 23, 2021, and Plaintiff's reply to September 13, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3doOPxd at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          John C. Carey, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Hernandez, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
                  jcarey@careyrodriguez.com
                  jhernandez@careyrodriguez.com

               - and -

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com

The Counsel for the Defendant Facebook, Inc., are:

          Matthew D. Provance, Esq.
          Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
          Matthew D. Provance, Esq.
          Michael Rayfield, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Telephone: (312) 701 8598
          E-mail: mprovance@mayerbrown.com

FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Ram 5500 Chassis Cab Trucks
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ram
class action lawsuit has been filed by the owner of a 2019 Ram 5500
Chassis Cab truck which allegedly suffered engine failure and
caused the owner to buy a different vehicle.

The lawsuit includes 2019-2020 Ram 5500 Chassis Cab trucks equipped
with Cummins diesel engines.

The Ram truck lawsuit references a September 2020 recall of
2019-2020 Ram 3500, 4500 and 5500 Chassis Cab trucks because of
engine failures and fires. The recall details said inadequate
warmup protection could cause a lack of oil film on the connecting
rod bearings while the engines were reaching operating
temperatures.

The connecting rods could fail and puncture the engine blocks,
allowing oil to leak onto ignition sources and start fires.

Fiat Chrysler said dealerships would flash the engine calibration
software to include better engine warm up protection.

According to the plaintiff, he purchased a new 2019 Ram 5500 for
about $75,000, but less than a year later the Cummins engine seized
and locked up on the freeway without any warning.

The Ram 5500 was towed to a Chrysler dealership to have the truck
repaired under warranty. However, the Ram truck was at the
dealership for nearly three months when the dealership finally
informed the plaintiff no repairs were available under warranty.

The Ram class action lawsuit alleges the truck's computer recorded
low oil pressure and the vehicle had been driven about 3,000 miles.
The dealer allegedly said no warranty repairs were available.

"Concern Customer states oil leak Cause tech found large hole in
engine block. tech started star case#101775894. star engineering
(sic) and cummins verfied failure is not warrantable due to low oil
pressure at the time of failure Correction warranty repair denied
by chrysler and cummins. no repairs made (sic)". -- Ram 5500
service invoice

The plaintiff says he was told to contact Chrysler which opened a
case number.

FCA allegedly contacted the plaintiff and told him Cummins did not
want to fix or replace the Ram engine.

The Ram truck owner then took the vehicle to an expert diesel
mechanic who allegedly found no evidence of misuse, abuse or
neglect.

According to the diesel expert:

"After inspection of the vehicle I found a huge hole in the side of
the engine block. One of the connection rods broke, which caused
the hole in the block. This is caused by connecting rod bearing
failure due to lack of oil pressure. While during some research on
this particular truck and engine combination, I came across a
service bulletin recall on this exact truck."

The mechanic said the recall indicates the engine computer must be
reprogrammed for a low oil pressure problem when cold. Basically
the computer was originally programmed to lower oil pressure when
cold to speed up the warm up time.

The mechanic said Chrysler lowered the oil pressure too much which
caused excessive wear to the engine bearings.

The Ram class action alleges the plaintiff still cannot drive the
truck and he eventually purchased a different vehicle.

The Ram class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for
the District of New Jersey: Ortiz, et al., v. FCA US LLC. et al.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of Lewis G. Adler,
and Perlman DePetris Consumer Law. [GN]

FEDEX GROUND: Hinds Suit Class Cert. Hearing Continued to July 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HINDS, an
individual, and TYRONE POWELL, an individual, on behalf of
themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and BAY RIM SERVICES, INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01431-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S.
White entered an order continuing the hearing on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification from July 2, 2021 to July 16, 2021.

Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.

A copy of the Court's order class dated June 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jqlLcu  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
                  mike@consumeradvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Clapp, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 590-7115
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: jc@asmlawyers.com

The Counsel for FedEx Ground Package System, are:

          Brandy Thompson Cody, Esq.
          Sean F. Daley, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail bcody@fisherphillips.com

The Counsel for Bay Rim Services, Inc., are:

          Craig B. Rashkis, Esq.
          Stephen A. Horner, Esq.
          FARWELL RASHKIS, LLP
          223 West Main Street, Suite B
          Los Gatos, CA 95030
          Telephone: (408) 399-0505
          Facsimile: (408) 399-4321
          E-mail: steve@farwellrashkis.com

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB SMITH, et al., v.
FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03954-EAS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the defined as:

      "all persons and entities resident in the state of Ohio who
      have and/or will have to pay a monthly surcharge for electric

      service pursuant to HB 6."

      H.B. 6 was scheduled to impose the nuclear bailout fee on all

      ratepayers throughout the State of Ohio. In addition,
      customers of FirstEnergy's EDUs continue to pay a legacy
      bailout fee for two old coal-powered plants and, until
      recently, paid tens of millions of dollars of rate
      stabilization charges, also known as "decoupling." While
      collection of these fees has been suspended, FirstEnergy
      collected fees before such corrective legislation;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jacob Smith, Brian Hudock and Cameo

      Countertops, Inc. to serve as Lead Plaintiffs and Class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Dennis E. Murray, Jr. of Murray & Murray Co.,
      L.P.A. and Marvin A. Miller of Miller Law LLC to serve as
      Class Counsel.

The CCAC asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) (Count One); Civil
Conspiracy (Count Two); Injury Through Criminal Acts pursuant to
O.R.C. section 2307.60(A)(1) (Count Three); Unjust Enrichment
(Count Four); and, Negligence and/or Gross Negligence (Count Five).
In addition to detailed factual allegations, the CCAC incorporates
by reference well-pled facts in the Indictment and Criminal
Complaint filed in the related criminal prosecution of United
States v. Householder, Case No. 1:20-cr-077 (S.D. Ohio).

FirstEnergy Corp is an electric utility headquartered in Akron,
Ohio. Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
distribution, transmission, and generation of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TaKo2w
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Margaret M. Murray, Esq.
          William H. Bartle, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
          Telephone: (419) 624-3126
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: dmj@murrayandmurray.com
                  mmm@murrayandmurray.com
                  whb@murrayandmurray.com

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  aszot@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
          THE KERGER LAW FIRM
          4159 N. Holland Sylvania Road
          Toledo, OH 43623
          Telephone: (419) 255-5990
          E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          Eric Marcy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail:kroddy@wilentz.com
                  emarcy@wilentz.com

FLORIDA REGIONAL: Peng, Fu Win Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA PENG and LIN FU, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS
A. MASTROINNI II; FLORIDA REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; HARBOURSIDE FUNDING GP, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company; and HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, the Defendants, and HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a
Florida Limited Partnership, the Nominal Defendant, Case No.
9:20-cv-80102-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon
entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted.

   2. Plaintiffs shall proceed in this case with the modified
class
      definition set forth in this Order.

   3. Should circumstances change or new record evidence come to
      light with respect to the propriety of class certification or

      the adequacy of the class definition, the parties may move at

      a later date to decertify or modify the class as defined in
      this Order.

The Court said, "Although Plaintiffs have met the requirements for
class certification in this action, the Court concludes that the
Putative Class must be more narrowly defined than the definition
proposed by Plaintiffs."

The Plaintiffs' Class Definition currently states as follows:

   "All persons who invested in the Funding Partnership (i.e., all
   Limited Partners). Excluded from this Class are Defendants,
   their affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members,
   directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its staff;

   and any Limited Partner who has entered into an enforceable
   agreement to  settle, waive, or otherwise resolve their claims
   against Defendants."

The Court hereby modifies that language as follows:

   "All persons who invested in the Funding Partnership (i.e., all

   Limited Partners). Excluded from this Class are Defendants,
   their affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members,
   directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its staff;

   any Limited Partner who has entered into an agreement to settle,

   waive, or otherwise resolve their claims against Defendants,
   whether in the State Court Action or through private resolution,

   arising from the same underlying subject matter in the instant
   case."

The Plaintiffs initiated this derivative and putative class action
in January 2020. In January 2021, Plaintiffs filed the current
operative pleading -- the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC
asserts claims against the Defendants. In brief, the SAC alleges
that, under the control and direction of Defendant Mastroianni,
Defendants engaged in numerous unlawful commercial practices that
harmed Plaintiffs, the Funding Partnership, and the Putative Class
Members, including by breaching fiduciary duties owed to the
Funding Partnership, Plaintiffs, and the Putative Class Members,
and breaching the parties' EB-5 Loan Agreement.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A8e3cX at no extra charge.[CC]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 2, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Frequency Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Frequency" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ) common stock
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies
evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most
significant which was a Phase 2a study that began in October 2019.

In April 2020, Frequency's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), David
L. Lucchino, began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling over
350,000 shares sold and earning over $10.5 million.

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

On this news, Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, to close at
$7.99 per share, thereby damaging investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Frequency's Phase 2a study
did not yield positive results to support the commercialization of
FX-322; and (2) that, as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
August 2, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if
you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class
action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this
class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency
Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March
22, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17057&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.

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - FREQ NEWS

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

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Frequency Therapeutics, you have until August 2, 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 Frequency Therapeutics securities
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 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/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17057&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]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FREQ) investors that acquired shares between November 16, 2020 and
March 22, 2021. Investors have until July 13, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

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

Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies
evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most
significant of which was a Phase 2a study, beginning in October
2019. In April 2020, David L. Lucchino Frequency's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling
over 350,000 shares sold, earning over $10.5 million.

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

Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, on this news, to close at
$7.99 per share, thereby damaging investors.

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Frequency made materially misleading and/or false statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Frequency's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Frequency failed
to disclose: (1) that Frequency's Phase 2a study did not yield
positive results in support of commercialization of FX-322; and (2)
that, as a result, Frequency's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 2,
2021.

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

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

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

GEORGIA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Delayed Unemployment Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JoAnn Merrigan at wsav.com reports that tens of thousands of
Georgians lost their jobs during the pandemic and desperately
looked to the Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) for help.

While many received unemployment benefits, others did not. Now a
class-action lawsuit may force GDOL to answer in court.

"The department is not doing its job," says Emily Early from the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which filed the suit on behalf of four
plaintiffs.

The legal action against GDOL and the state of Georgia cites
complaints about long delays and no communication from the
department.

"I again cannot tell you how many people I've spoken to and how
many emails I've received from people who just lost hope," said
Early.

The suit seeks the money that the unemployed say is owed in
benefits and damages. Early expects others, maybe many others, to
join the lawsuit.

"This is an issue that's been ongoing, and yes, we do expect to
receive lots of calls and have already begun receiving calls and
emails in respect to requests to join the lawsuit or find out more
information," said Early, "Because this has been happening to so
many people throughout this state for the last 15 months."

"It has been absolutely heartbreaking. I actually have been in
contact with one individual who was on the brink of threats to harm
himself because of the financial devastation of the pandemic and
the claims that both he and his wife have had pending with the
Department of Labor for over a year," she said.

The suit claims GDOL has failed to follow the law, which guarantees
promptness and due process to people filing.

Many people who are turned down for benefits have the right to
appeal. The suit cites information that says the average wait time
for an appeal (hearing) should be about 30 days or one month, but
that in Georgia, the average time to get a hearing has been 217
days or about seven months.

GDOL officials have said consistently that claims have to be
thoroughly processed, and that takes trained employees. WSAV has
also be told during the past year that literally millions of claims
were processed.

"We don't think GDOL is doing all that it can," said Early. "From
what we understand, staffing levels have not been substantially
increased."

She also wanted to make the point that in the past year, it's not
only the lower-income applicants that sought help from GDOL.

"We've heard from business owners, managers, and yes, lower-income
wage workers. There are people all across the economic spectrum who
have heard nothing from the Department of Labor or who are owed
money or who have been waiting for an appeal for months," said
Early.

Georgia Labor Commissioner Mark Butler issued a statement
indicating his support of his department and condemned the legal
action:

This is obviously another politically motivated lawsuit. Just like
previous lawsuits, we expect to prove that this suit does not have
merit. These groups believe that unemployment insurance should be
paid to everyone who applies, regardless of their qualifications.
The same groups should be more concerned with helping people go
back to work in one of the hundreds of thousands of jobs currently
available across the state of Georgia. [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 21 gave Goldman Sachs Group Inc. another chance to
avoid an investor class action lawsuit accusing the bank of hiding
conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities
before the 2008 financial crisis.

The justices threw out a decision by the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals last year that had allowed Goldman
shareholders including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to
sue as a group under a federal investor protection law. The
plaintiffs accused the bank of unlawfully hiding conflicts of
interest when creating risky subprime securities.

In directing the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the matter, the justices
said the lower court had failed to properly assess whether the
bank's statements that the investors had called misleading were too
generic to have affected its stock price.

The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, hands Goldman a
victory - for now - in a class action in which the plaintiffs have
said they lost more than $13 billion due to the bank's conduct.
However, the decision clarified that the burden is still on
defendants like Goldman to persuade a court that their alleged
misstatements had no impact on the stock price - a finding that
conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel
Alito said they disagreed with in a partial dissent.

In a statement, one of the law firms representing the shareholders,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, welcomed the decision rejecting
"Goldman's effort to flip the burden of persuasion" onto
plaintiffs.

"Since this case was first filed more than 11 years ago, Goldman
Sachs has spared no expense to avoid facing a jury for misleading
investors about its role in the financial crisis," the firm said.

Goldman spokesperson Maeve DuVally said the bank was pleased with
the decision and "we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
as the case returns to the lower courts."

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and other pensions that
purchased Goldman shares between February 2007 and June 2010 filed
suit, accusing the company and three former executives of violating
an anti-fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
a related SEC regulation. The plaintiffs said that the bank's
fraudulent statements kept its stock price artificially high.

The case had been closely followed for clues as to how the Supreme
Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, would view shareholder
class actions. Businesses often seek to limit the ability of
plaintiffs to collectively sue in order to avoid the higher damages
often awarded in such litigation.

The plaintiffs said that when they bought Goldman shares they
relied upon the bank's statements about its ethical principles and
internal controls against conflicts of interest, and its pledge
that its "clients' interests always come first."

Goldman argued that these "aspirational" statements were too vague
and general to have had any impact on the stock price.

The case stemmed from Goldman's sale of collateralized debt
obligations including Abacus 2007 AC-1, which it assembled with
help from hedge fund manager John Paulson.

In 2010, Goldman reached a $550 million settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve charges that it
cheated Abacus investors by concealing Paulson's role, including
how he made a $1 billion profit by betting that the sale of
collateralized debt obligations would fail.

The plaintiffs said that the share price would have been lower if
the truth had been known about the company's conflicts of
interest.

The 2nd Circuit last year upheld a federal judge's decision to let
the plaintiffs sue as a group and rejected one of the company's
arguments that generic statements can never impact a stock price.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a partial dissent in the case,
saying the 2nd Circuit's decision should have been affirmed. [GN]

HAPPY FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rahmallah Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAWAL RAHMALLAH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. HAPPY FAMILY SOCIAL ADULT CENTER
INC., and FAMILY SOCIAL ADULT DAY CARE INC., and ZAKIA KHAN,
individually, and AHSAN IJAZ, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03277 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff her minimum and overtime wages for work
performed and failure to promptly pay Plaintiff under the Fair
Labor Standards Act or pay her according to the terms and
conditions of her employment under the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Arabic coordinator
from October 2017 to December 2, 2020.

The Defendants operate senior centers providing services for
adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229

HARRY'S NURSES: Appeals Denied Motion to Reopen Gayle FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilien filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Gayle, et
al. v. Harry's Nurses Registry, et al., Case No. 07-cv-4672, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This is an action by nurses claiming alleged unpaid overtime from a
nursing staffing company and its owner.

This litigation began in 2007, when a nurse named Claudia Gayle,
and other nurses recruited to join Ms. Gayle's lawsuit, sued Mr.
Dorvilier and his company under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 (West) et. seq, claiming they were
due unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and (for plaintiffs'
counsel who started the lawsuit) attorneys' fees.

The Defendants are seeking a review of the Court's Order dated May
13, 2021, denying their motion to reopen the case. The order states
that the case is not administratively closed, as defense counsel
appears to believe, but rather is closed because the merits have
been conclusively litigated to judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Gayle v. Harry's Nurses
Registry, Case No. 21-1463, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on June 9, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry Dorvilien
are represented by:

          George Adrian Rusk, Esq.
          GEORGE A. RUSK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          70 Lamarck Drive
          Snyder, NY 14226
          Telephone: (716) 839-3569

Plaintiffs-Appellees Claudia Gayle, Aline Antenor, Anne C.
DePasquale, Annabel Llewellyn-Henry, Eva Myers-Granger, Lindon
Morrison, Natalie Rodriguez, Jacqueline Ward, Dupont Bayas, Carol
P. Clunie, Ramdeo Chankar Singh, Christaline Pierre, Lemonia Smith,
Barbara Tull, Henrick Ledain, Merika Paris, Edith Mukardi, Martha
Ogun Jance, Merlyn Patterson, Alexander Gumbs, Serojnie Bhog,
Genevieve Barbot, Carole Moore, Raquel Francis, Marie Michelle
Gervil, Nadette Miller, Paulette Miller, Bendy Pierre-Joseph,
Rose-Marie Zephirin, Sulaiman Ali-El, Debbie Ann Bromfield, Rebecca
Pile, Maria Garcia Shands, Angela Collins, Brenda Lewis, Soucianne
Querette, Sussan Ajiboye, Jane Burke Hylton, Willie Evans, Pauline
Gray, Eviarna Toussaint, Geraldine Joazard, Niseekah Y. Evans,
Getty Rocourt, Catherine Modeste, Marguerite L. Bhola, Yolanda
Robinson, Karlifa Small, Joan-Ann R. Johnson, Lena Thompson, Mary
A. Davis, Nathalie Francois, Anthony Headlam, David Edward Levy,
Maud Samedi, Bernice Sankar, and Marlene Hyman, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated and as class
Representative, are represented by:

          Shelley Ann Quilty-Lake, Esq.
          MEENAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          299 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 226-7334
          E-mail: sql@meenanesqs.com

HERCULES TREE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Ray Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN RAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HERCULES TREE SERVICES LLC and CODY BUTZER,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01168 (N.D. Ohio, June 10, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Rev. Code by failing to pay Plaintiff and those
similarly situated all overtime compensation earned.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants for approximately 18 months in 2019
and 2020 as a "Ground Person."

Hercules Tree is an enterprise providing various services involving
tree trimming and removal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

HIGHMARK BCBSD: Court Enters Case Management Order in Walker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER,
v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01975-CCW
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a case
management order that:

   1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required by
      Rule 26(a)(1) on or before July 23, 2021.

   2. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or
      before August 9, 2021. The parties shall file any motion to
      amend the pleadings on or before August 24, 2021.

   3. The parties shall file a completed ADR stipulation on or
      before October 8, 2021. The parties shall complete their ADR

      session by December 6, 2021.

   4. Discovery shall proceed in phases. The first phase, related
      to class certification, shall be completed on or before
      November 22, 2021.

   5. The filing of a motion to dismiss or other dispositive motion

      generally will not stay discovery. Likewise, participation in

      an ADR process will not stay discovery.

   6. Counsel must confer on discovery disputes prior to seeking
      the Court's intervention, and must follow the procedures set

      forth in the Court's Practices and Procedures

   7. The provisions of Local Rule 16.1.D, regarding procedures
      governing the inadvertent disclosure of privileged or trial
      preparation material, are hereby incorporated into this
      Order, as if fully restated herein.

   8. The briefing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
      shall proceed as follows:

      a. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due
on
         or before December 30, 2021, and Plaintiff's supporting
         brief shall be limited to 20 pages;

      b. The Defendant's response to the Motion for Class
         Certification shall be due on or before January 20, 2022,

         and shall be limited to twenty (20) pages; and

      c. The Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant's response,
         which shall be filed by January 27, 2022.

   9. A separate order addressing the timing and procedures for an

      evidentiary hearing, if necessary, on Plaintiff's Motion for
      Class Certification will issue after the close of briefing.

  10. Following its ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification, the Court will schedule a mid-discovery status

      conference to address the schedule for completing the second
      phase of discovery.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SxLLYy at no extra charge.[CC]

HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Johnson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYEASHA JOHNSON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00574-SPM (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Shirley
Padmore Mensah entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Approve
      Settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
      Action.

   2. certifying this case as an FLSA collective action for
      settlement purposes only;

   3. approving the Settlement Agreement; and

   4. dismissing this action with prejudice, in accordance with
      the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that this case should be certified as a Fair FLSA
collective action for settlement purposes and that the terms of the
settlement should be approved.

On April 23, 2020, the Plaintiff Tyeasha Johnson filed a Collective
Action Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. (the "FLSA"), on behalf of
herself and all current and former medical billing Remote Coders
("Coders") who work and/or worked for Himagine Solutions, inc.
("Himagine") within the United States.

The Plaintiff alleged that Himagine violated the FLSA by failing to
pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated the required overtime
compensation. Seven other individuals who previously worked for
Himagine (the "opt-ins") also consented to join this action as
party plaintiffs. On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First
Amended Collective Action Complaint, in which she limited the
collective action to "all current and former remote Coders who work
and/or worked for Himagine within the United States outside of the
State of California."

Himagine Solutions provides healthcare outsourcing solutions. The
Company offers CDI, coding, audit, education, and registration
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/360b9te at no extra charge.[CC]

HOME POINT Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Home Point Capital Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

HMPT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17123&wire=1

Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT)

This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021
initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17123&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Home Point's aggressive
expansion of its broker partners would dramatically increase the
Company's expenses; (ii) the mortgage industry was anticipating
industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising
interest rates in 2021 and Home Point would be subject to the same
competitive pressures; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated its business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]


HOME POINT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home Point" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HMPT) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and docketed under 21-cv-11457, is on behalf
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Home Point common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021, initial public
offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") (the "Class"). The
claims in this action arise from Home Point's materially misleading
Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the
IPO.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Home Point common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021,
initial public offering, you have until August 20, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Home Point, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
residential mortgage originator and service provider. The Company
operates through two segments, Origination and Servicing. The
Origination segment sources loans through direct, wholesale, and
correspondent channels. The Servicing segment offers collecting
loan payments; remitting principal and interest payments to
investors; managing escrow funds for the payment of
mortgage-related expenses, such as taxes and insurance; and
performing loss mitigation activities on behalf of investors and
administering mortgage loans.

From 2018 to 2020, Home Point undertook an aggressive expansion of
its Broker Partner network, increasing the network from 1,623 as of
December 31, 2018 to nearly 5,000 as of September 30, 2020, which
represents an annualized growth rate of 88%.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, mortgage lenders industry-wide began
predicting decreased gain-on-sale margins, the difference between
the retail and wholesale cost of a mortgage, for the succeeding
three months. According to the Fannie Mae Q4 2020 Mortgage Lender
Sentiment Survey, only 19% of lenders foresaw a spike in profit
margins compared to 48% in the prior quarter, 33% believed profits
would hold steady, while 48% expected a decrease in profits.

On January 8, 2021, Home Point filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after
amendment, was declared effective on January 28, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").

On January 29, 2021, Home Point conducted the IPO, issuing 7.25
million shares of the Company's common stock to the public at the
Offering price of $13.00 per share for proceeds of $88,123,750 to
the selling stockholders before expenses and after applicable
underwriting discounts and commissions.

On February 1, 2021, Home Point filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Home Point's
aggressive expansion of its broker partners would dramatically
increase the Company's expenses; (ii) the mortgage industry was
anticipating industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale margins as a
result of rising interest rates in 2021 and Home Point would be
subject to the same competitive pressures; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had overstated its business and financial prospects; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein.

On May 6, 2021, Home Point issued a press release announcing the
Company's financial results for the first quarter of 2021. Among
other results, Home Point reported revenue of $324.2 million,
missing consensus estimates by $41.72 million.

On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66 per share, or
17.7%, to close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021.

At the time this Complaint was filed, Home Point's stock price has
continued to trade below the $13.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

HOME POINT: Schall Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Home Point
Capital Inc. ("Home Point" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: HMPT) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 20,
2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Home Point's plan to aggressively expand
its broker partners would in turn dramatically increase its
expenses. The mortgage industry anticipated shrinking gain-on-sale
margins due to rising interest rates, resulting in increased
competitive pressures on the Company. The Company overstated its
business and growth prospects. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements and offering documents were false and materially
misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the
truth about Home Point, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

HUDAPACK METAL: Rule 23 Class & FLSA Collective Get Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA KELLY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. HUDAPACK METAL
TREATING INC, Case No. 20-cv-0130-bhl (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Brett H. Ludwig entered an order that:

   1. The Court's previous provisional appointments of Laura Kelly
      as Class Representative and Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class
      Counsel, and its provisional certification of the Proposed
      Rule 23 Class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective

      are made final.

   2. The parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is

      granted.

   3. The Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Plaintiff's Service
      Award is granted.

   4. The Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
      Costs is granted.

   5. The payments to the Settlement Class, including members of
      the Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective, are approved. The
      funds should be distributed in a manner consistent with the
      Settlement Agreement.

   6. All settled claims are dismissed subject to the terms of the

      Settlement Agreement.

On April 15, 2021, the parties filed their Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class
Certification for the Purposes of Settlement, and their fully
executed Settlement Agreement and Release, in this dual Rule 23
class action and FLSA collective action. On April 20, 2021, the
Court granted preliminary approval according to the settlement.

On June 3, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement, and Plaintiff’s counsel filed an
unopposed Motion for Approval of Plaintiff's Service Award, and an
unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

On June 24, 2021, the Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on the
parties' request for final approval of their Settlement Agreement
and Release and determined that the settlement in this matter,
Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees and case-related costs and
expenses, and Plaintiff's service award were fair and reasonable.

Hudapack is a metal heat treatment company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dj8G0M at no extra charge.[CC]

ILLINOIS: Prison Staff Sues Over Tolerated Sexual Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Kainz, Sara Bailey, Rebecca Buczkowski, and Sabrina Fox, on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Rob Jeffreys, in his individual capacity and official
capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections,
Leonta Jackson in his individual capacity and official capacity as
the Warden of Pontiac Correctional Center, Teri Kennedy, former
Warden, Emily Ruskin, former Warden, in her individual capacity,
Kelly Renzi, in her individual capacity and official capacity as
the Psychology Administrator, John Sokol in his official capacity
as Site Mental Health Services Director and Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03239 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2021),
seeks actual and compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Illinois Civil Rights Act.

Kainz and Bailey are Mental Health Professionals at the Pontiac
prison while Buczkowski was a licensed Correctional Nurse.

They allege that the Defendants have knowingly created, fostered,
and tolerated an environment in the Pontiac prison whereby male
inmates have intentionally exposed their penises and masturbated at
and/or on Plaintiffs and other female medical and mental health
employees throughout the prison, including the galleries, cells,
recreation yards, therapy and treatment rooms and infirmary. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robin Potter, Esq.
     M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq.
     POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.
     111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 861-1800
     Email: robin@potterlaw.org
            nieves@potterlaw.org

            - and -

     Patricia Stamler, Esq.
     Steve Weiss, Esq.
     Elizabeth C. Thompson, Esq.
     Matthew Turchyn, Esq.
     HERTZ SCHRAM PC
     1760 S. Telegraph Rd. Suite 300
     Bloomfield Hills, IM 48302
     Tel: (248) 335-5000
     Email: pstamler@hertzschram.com
            sweiss@hertzschram.com
            lthomson@hertzschram.com
            mturchyn@hertzschram.com

            - and -

     Martin A. Dolan, Esq.
     Karen Munoz, Esq.
     DOLAN LAW PC
     10 South LaSalle Street #3702
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 676-7600
     Email: mdolan@dolanlegal.com
            kmunoz@dolanlegal.com


IMEDIA BRANDS: Duffek Slams Termination Sans 60-day Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Duffek, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. iMedia Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01413 (D. Minn., June 16, 2021), seeks collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

iMedia Brands, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that operates a
cable, satellite, and broadcast home shopping television network.
Duffek, a former iMedia employee, was an on-air guest and host at
the time of her termination. iMedia Brands terminated more than one
third of the people at its Eden Prairie headquarters and more than
one third of the people at its Kentucky distribution center because
of "significant and recent unforeseeable business circumstances
related to the COVID-19 pandemic." Duffek alleges that iMedia
failed to provide 60 days' advance notice to its employees. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bert Black, Esq.
      Lauren A. D'Cruz, Esq.
      Makenzie L. Krause, Esq.
      SCHAEFER HALLEEN, LLC
      412 South 4th Street, Suite 1050
      Minneapolis, MN 55415
      Tel: (612) 294-2600
      Email: bblack@schaeferhalleen.com
             ldcruz@schaeferhalleen.com
             mkrause@schaeferhalleen.com


INDUS COMPANIES: Filing of Class Cert. Response Extended to July 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelson v. Indus Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00982 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting unopposed motion for
extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify
conditional class certification and court-supervised notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).

Responses due is by July 2, 2021, says Magistrate Judge Vascura on
Junre 24, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Indus is located in Columbus, Ohio, and is part of the Bed &
Breakfast Inns Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

ISAAC ALKADAA: Caba Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Missing Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Antonio Lantigua Caba, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Isaac Alkadaa, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-05338 (S.D. N.Y., June 16, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Isaac Alkadaa owns, operates, or controls a department store in New
York where Caba was employed as a stock worker. Plaintiff claims to
have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime
for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied
spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. He also
claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com

JAMES RIVER: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of James River Group
Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR)
investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of the federal securities laws.

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

On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed
that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all
policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.06, or over 23%,
to close at $37.88 per share on October 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on May 5, 2021, James River announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting "$170.0 million of unfavorable
development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously
canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.16, or 26%, to
close at $33.94 per share on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
James River should consider their options to aid the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H.
Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                           About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

JEA SENIOR: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Changed to March 1, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, a.k.a.
ANNICA PALACIO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, v. JEA SENIOR LIVING HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, LLC,
a Washington Limited Liability Company, WILLOW SPRINGS MANAGEMENT
CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Blossom Grove, CA,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability company, Empire Ranch Alzheimer's
Special Care Center, a business entity form unknown and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02318-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Troy L. Nunley Judge entered an order granting the Parties' request
to modify the scheduling orders as follows:

           Deadline                   Previous       New  
                                        Date         Date

   Phase I (Class Certification)    Aug 2, 2021   Nov. 1, 2021
   -- Discovery

   Phase I (Class Certification     Oct. 1, 2021  Dec. 30, 2021
   -- Disclosure

   Expert Witness Phase I           Dec. 1, 2021  March 1, 2022
   (Class Certification)
   -- Class Certification
   Motion

Jea Senior is in the residential care business.

A copy of the Parties motion dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h9uFsp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
          Bao M. Vu, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447.0700
          Facsimile: (916) 447.4781
          E-mail: Bryan.hawkins@stoel.com
                  bao.vu@stoel.com

KIDSEMBRACE LLC: Extension of Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY WHITTINGTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
KIDSEMBRACE, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No.
2:21-cv-01830-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. to extend the date for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification, currently due on or before July 14,
      2021; and

   2. to specially set the hearing schedule based on the continued

      due date for filing the motion for class certification and
      requested hearing date, with a schedule that deviates from
      Local Rules 7-9 and 7-10 with respect to the deadlines for
      opposing and reply papers.

This case concerns the highback car booster seats ("Booster Seats")
for children manufactured and sold by Defendant, KidsEmbrace, LLC
("KidsEmbrace"). On behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated purchasers of the Booster Seats, Plaintiff alleges that
KidsEmbrace made material misrepresentations and omissions about
the Booster Seats' safety and its ability to even be used by class
members for children weighing less than 40 pounds.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ae7Mwn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
          THE RUDD LAW FIRM
          4650 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 205
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 663-0705
          Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
          E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawla.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle Perry, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 42902294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
          ggraifman@kgglaw.com
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
          GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335

KLOECKNER METALS: Bid for Class Cert. Must be Filed by July 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO DELGADO, v.
KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07405-GW-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no
      later than July 16, 2021;

   2. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification shall be filed no later than July 30, 2021;

   3. Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's
      Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than
      August 20, 2021;

   4. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
      currently set for July 29, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. is continued to

      September 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.; and

   5. The Further Scheduling Conference currently set for July 29,

      2021 is continued to September 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

Kloeckner is a steel and metal distributor based in Roswell,
Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qw7Q6z at no extra charge.[CC]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Anh Van Thai et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anh Van Thai, Don Doan,
Tommy Nguyen, Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. William Villasenor, Dulce Sanchez, County of
Los Angeles, and unknown state and/or city officials, Does 20-40,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the action to proceed as a class
action and appointing their counsels as class counsels.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the US' film and television industry. Near its iconic Hollywood
sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures, Universal and Warner
Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35YznE9
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Hector, Esq.
          1445 Chalcedony Street
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (619) 985-4446

               - and -

          Alexandra T. Manbeck
          P.O. BOX 449
          Cross River, NY 10518
          Telephone: (619) 573-8139

LOUISIANA DOH: Bid to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A. A. by and through his
mother, P.A., ET AL. v. DR. COURTNEY N. PHILLIPS, in her official
capacity, as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, ET
AL. Case No. 3:19-cv-00770-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian
A. Jackson entered an order that the Defendants' first motion to
stay proceedings pending appeal is denied.

The Court said, "the Defendants fail to show a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of their Rule 23(f) petition,
or "that the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of
granting the stay."

On May 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion For
Class Certification, and ordered that this action shall proceed as
a class action, with a class consisting of:

   "All Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the State
of
   Louisiana (1) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or
   behavioral disorder, not attributable to an intellectual or
   developmental disability, and (2) for whom a licensed
   practitioner of the healing arts has recommended intensive home-

   and community- based services to correct or ameliorate their
   disorders."

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

MANHATTAN LUXURY: Watson Must File Class Status Bid by Oct. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, et al., v.
MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order that:

   1. Defendant shall serve its rebuttal expert reports by August
      11, 2021;

   2. All discovery shall be completed by September 9, 2021;

   3. The briefing of Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
      certification shall proceed as follows:

      a. Plaintiffs shall file their motion by October 12, 2021;

      b. Defendant shall file its opposition by November 12, 2021;

      c. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by November 30,
         2021;

   4. The parties shall continue to file joint status letters every

      30 days, with the next letter due July 23, 2021;

   5. The pre-motion conference before Judge Schofield currently
      scheduled for August 26, 2021 is re-scheduled to Thursday,
      September 23, 2021 at 10:50 am; and

   6. All other terms of the Third Amended Civil Case Management
      Plan and Scheduling Order remain in effect.

Manhattan Luxury is located in Long Island City, New York, and is
part of the Automobile Dealers Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x0VDZV at no extra charge.[CC]

MARYLAND: Faces Class Suit Over Workers' Pandemic Relief Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Menitoff at cbslocal.com reports that the Unemployed Workers
Union has filed a class-action lawsuit naming Governor Larry Hogan
and Maryland Secretary of Labor, Tiffany Robinson, as defendants.

Attorney Alec Summerfield filed the lawsuit on behalf of about
50,000 people who filed for unemployment insurance dating back to
March 18, 2020. The lawsuit is asking for a temporary restraining
order to stop Governor Larry Hogan from ending the additional $300
weekly pandemic relief payments.

It is also demanding that the Maryland Labor Department quickly
release payments to people who have waited weeks, months and even
longer periods of time for their benefits.

"Now is not the time to withhold essential benefits for the people
who have been doing the living, the fighting and the dying during
this terrible terrible pandemic," said Attorney Alec Summerfield.

A spokesperson with Governor Hogan's office sent WJZ the following
statement in response to the class-action lawsuit:

"On bonus benefits: Go anywhere in the state right now, and
employers will tell you their top challenge is finding enough
workers. In fact, there are more jobs available now than ever
before. Even the White House has distanced itself from bonus
benefits, saying that states have every right to opt-out.

An example of what the labor shortage looks like can be found in
the most recent jobs report. The Accommodations and Food Services
industry added 2,200 jobs in May - less than in February, March,
and April even while demand continues to rise.

Additionally, wages and salaries increased in May, which supports
the state's reasoning for opting out of the program.

On pending claims: "The state continues to successfully process
more than 97% of claims even while facing an onslaught of
fraudulent claims each week. For the small fraction that are
pending, state law, unfortunately, leaves claimants vulnerable to
being stuck in a complicated adjudication process. The General
Assembly failed to address this problem during its 2021 session."

Baltimore resident, Vic Frierson, is going on four weeks without
having received his unemployment benefits and has been calling the
Maryland Department of Labor several times daily.

It was only by happenstance that he finally spoke to a live
operator. However, the person was not able to say with any
certainty when Frierson will receive his benefits.

Prior to the pandemic, Frierson drove for Lyft ride-sharing. He
still wants to wait until more people are fully vaccinated before
returning.

"I'm not at all comfortable with now getting back on the road
prematurely in the close confines of my vehicle," said Frierson.
"We, including me, paid into the system and now expect to derive
the benefit." [GN]

MARYLAND: Suit Seeks to Block Decision on Pandemic Relief Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
foxbaltimore.com reports that an unemployment class-action lawsuit
was filed against Governor Larry Hogan and Maryland Secretary of
Labor Tiffany Robinson in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

The suit is asking for a temporary restraining order on the
Governor's decision to end federal unemployment benefits and for
the Maryland Department of Labor to process claims and pay-out
benefits.

"There are still thousands of Marylanders who haven't received a
dime of unemployment insurance," said Sharon Black with the
Unemployed Workers Union.

The suit lists six plaintiffs and the "size of the Plaintiffs'
class is approximately fifty thousand individuals" according to the
filing.

"The class for this lawsuit is all unemployed workers who filed for
benefits in the state of Maryland since the beginning of the
pandemic," said pro-bono attorney Alec Summerfield.

Each of the six named plaintiffs provided a signed affidavit.

One of the plaintiffs detailed his battle for unemployment
benefits, saying it brought "unprecedented stress" into his life.

According to his affidavit, he recently had a heart attack and is
now pawning precious family jewelry and heirlooms to eat and put
gas in the car.

"People who worked for decades now cannot afford to put food on the
table," said Summerfield. "This is a disgrace"

The Unemployed Workers Union, an organizer of the class-action
lawsuit, tells FOX45 News it expects a response from the court
regarding the temporary restraining order sometime. [GN]

MCDONALD'S USA: Ries Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA RIES, KATLYN BARBER,
JOANNE BISHOP and EMILY ANIBAL, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, v. McDONALD'S USA, LLC, McDONALD'S
CORPORATION, and MLMLM CORPORATION d/b/a McDONALD'S, Case No.
1:20-cv-00002-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order as follows:

   -- The Plaintiffs seek certification of their claims for
      monetary relief against all Defendants under Federal Rule of

      Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and also seek certification of
      their claims for injunctive relief against Corporate
      Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
      (Franchise Defendants have sold their restaurants and gone
      out of business, making it impossible for Plaintiffs to
      obtain injunctive relief against them.)

   -- The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all women who

      worked in a position below the level of Assistant Manager at

      Defendants' McDonald’s restaurant located at 730 North
Cedar
      Street in Mason, Michigan during at least one shift with
      Shawn Banks since November 12, 2016 (the Class).

   -- Plaintiffs Ries and Bishop also seek certification of a
      subclass of all members of the proposed Class who worked
      during at least one shift with Shawn Banks since January 12,

      2019 (the "Title VII Subclass").

The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Elliott Larsen
Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 against the defendants MLMLM Corporation and M.A.A.K.S., Inc.,
("Franchise Defendants") and McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's
Corporation ("Corporate Defendants"), seeking redress on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated for rampant sexual
harassment and a hostile work environment while they were employed
at Defendants' McDonald's restaurant located at 730 North Cedar
Street in Mason, Michigan.

McDonald's is part of the Fast-Food & Quick-Service Restaurants
Industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vW5I96 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darcie R. Brault, Esq.
          MCKNIGHT, CANZANO, SMITH,
          RADTKE & BRAULT, P.C.
          423 N. Main Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 354-9650
          E-mail: dbrault@michworkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Gillian Thomas, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7356
          E-mail: gthomas@aclu.org

               - and -

          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Elizabeth Vissers, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
                  evissers@altshulerberzon.com

The Attorneys for Defendant MLMLM Corp., are:

          C. Thomas Ludden, Esq.
          Jessica L. Wynn, Esq.
          LIPSON NEILSON, P.C.
          3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 593-5000
          E-mail: tludden@lipsonneilson.com
                  jwynn@lipsonneilson.com

The Attorneys for McDonald's USA LLC and McDonald's Corporation,
are:

          Elizabeth B. Mcree, Esq.
          Andrew J. Clopton, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Plagman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Telephone: (312) 269-4374
          E-mail: emcree@JonesDay.com
                  aclopton@JonesDay.com
                  jplagman@JonesDay.com

MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2021, that the consolidated class action suit
involving the acquisition of Covidien PLC has been concluded.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien PLC.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters
were consolidated.

In April 2021, the parties reach an agreement to resolve this
matter, bringing it to a conclusion.

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MERCEDES BENZ: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard
Seeborg entered a revised initial case management scheduling order
as follows:

         Description of Event                  Deadline

   Deadline for fact discovery             November 16, 2021

   Deadline for mediation                  December 1, 2021

   Deadline for any motion                 December 15, 2021
   for class certification, and
   for disclosures and reports
   of any experts Plaintiff intends
   to rely on at class certification

   Deadline for any opposition to          March 14, 2022
   a motion for class certification;
   for Defendant's disclosures and
   reports of any experts Defendant
   intends to rely on at class
   certification; and for any motion
   by MBUSA to limit or exclude
   Plaintiff's class certification
   expert testimony based on Daubert
   or any other basis

   Deadline for Plaintiff's reply          May 12, 2022
   in support of a motion for
   class certification; deadline
   for Plaintiff to respond to
   MBUSA's class certification expert
   testimony based on Daubert or
   any other basis

   Hearing on motion for class            June 23, 2022
   certification

Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for passenger cars of Daimler AG
in the United States located in Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA. It is
a subsidiary of Daimler AG and today sells cars from the
Mercedes-Benz brand.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A57PKS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, are:

          Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
          Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
          Jenny L. Grantz, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954 0200
          Facsimile: (415) 393 9887
          E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
                  eric.knapp@squirepb.com
                  jenny.grantz@squirepb.com

MSNF FOODS: Gazi Suit Seeks Proper Expense Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------
Maksudur Gazi, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MSNF Foods LLC, MSNF Foods 4 LLC, MSNF
Foods 5 LLC, MSNF Foods Bethel LLC, MSNF Foods Danbury LLC, MSNF
Foods Dumont LLC, MSNF Foods Edison LLC, MSNF Foods Elmwood LLC,
MSNF Foods Fairlawn LLC, MSNF Foods Franklin LLC, MSNF Foods
Hackettstown LLC, MSNF Foods Hillsborough LLC, MSNF Foods II LLC,
MSNF Foods III LLC, MSNF Foods Kearny LLC, MSNF Foods Ledgewood
LLC, MSNF Foods New Milford LLC, MSNF Foods Niagara LLC, MSNF Foods
Norwood LLC, MSNF Foods Shelton LLC, MSNF Foods South Bound Brook
LLC, MSNF Foods Westwood LLC, MSNF Foods Raritan, LLC, MSNF Foods
Management, LLC and Massoud Ansari, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-12665, (D. N.J., June 16, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. They
employed delivery drivers who drive their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to its customers. Gazi claims
that the vehicle reimbursement rates are not commensurate with his
actual expenses thus rendering his net pay below the mandated
minimum wage rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      BROWN, LLC
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

             - and -

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      Meredith Mathews, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com
             mmathews@foresterhaynie.com


MYLAN NV: Summary Judgment Bid Over Antitrust Class Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
courthousenews.com reports that a federal court in Kansas ruled
partially in favor of Mylan in a class action suit brought by
EpiPen consumers. Mylan won summary judgment on claims that its
rebate agreements violated federal anti-racketeering and antitrust
law, but claims based on a 2012 settlement agreement with generic
drug manufacturer Teva will continue to trial.[GN]

NAATIONAL COLLEGIATE: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trial Victory
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman disclosed that on June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld a ruling in favor of a nationwide class of college
athletes challenging NCAA-imposed caps on college athlete
scholarships, represented by attorneys at Hagens Berman as co-lead
counsel.

"It is our hope that this victory in the battle for college
athletes' rights will carry on a wave of justice uplifting further
aspects of athlete compensation. This is the fair treatment college
athletes deserve," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman.

The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Steve Berman of
Hagens Berman, Jeffrey Kessler of Winston & Strawn. In fall 2018,
Berman and Kessler led the case during a 10-day bench trial before
District Judge Wilken, which pitted the plaintiffs against the NCAA
and the most powerful athletic conferences, including the Pac-12,
Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC.

The court ordered the NCAA and its conferences to abrogate rules
that prohibited athletes from reviving more compensation so long as
that compensation was related to education. Afterward NCAA
president Mark Emmert admitted that providing more educational
benefits was "a good Thing" but the NCAA appealed to the Supreme
court anyway.

In late 2017, the district court in the Alston matter granted final
approval of a $208 million settlement on behalf of tens of
thousands of current and former NCAA Division 1 college athletes
represented by Hagens Berman, who were impacted by a prior NCAA cap
on grant-in-aid scholarships.

From the Bench

The ruling cements the findings in 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals that the NCAA's regulations concerning athletic
scholarships were overly restrictive and violated federal antitrust
laws. The ruling also allows for an injunction upheld by the
federal appeals court which will prohibit the NCAA from enforcing
any rules that fix or limit compensation provided to college
athletes by schools or conferences in consideration for their
athletic services other than cash compensation untethered to
education-related expenses.

Under SCOTUS' ruling, individual Division I athletic conferences
may now independently set the rules for education-related
compensation or benefits that their member institutions may provide
to college athletes, free from NCAA rules that the court found
violate the antitrust laws. According to the injunction, the NCAA
is "permanently restrained and enjoined from agreeing to fix or
limit compensation or benefits related to education" that
conferences may make available.

The appeal, which was argued in March 2020 before circuit judges
Sidney R. Thomas, Ronald M. Gould and Milan D. Smith, Jr. states,
"[T]he district court properly applied the Rule of Reason in
determining that the enjoined rules are unlawful restraints of
trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act." The court's findings
that, "the NCAA's rules have 'significant anticompetitive effects
in the relevant market' for Student-Athletes' labor on the gridiron
and the court . . . 'have substantial support in the record.'"

"[W]e hold that the district court properly concluded that the NCAA
limits on education-related benefits do not 'play by the Sherman
Act's rules,'" Judge Smith said in the opinion. "Accordingly, we
affirm its liability determination and injunction in all
respects."

Hagens Berman continues to represent college athletes in important
cases, including another antitrust matter involving compensation
for college athletes' names, images and likenesses (NIL). Under the
current regulations of the NCAA, college athletes are restricted
from being able to monetize their NILs. This stands in stark
contrast to the lucrative sponsorship, endorsement, and other
NIL-related deals held by the NCAA and its members, which generate
massive revenues that pay for elaborate stadiums and exorbitant
coach salaries. Read more about this continuing case and other
sports litigation cases.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman has 10 offices worldwide. The firm's tenacious drive
for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national accolades,
awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and
Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its
successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.

Contacts:
Ashley Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
206-268-9363 [GN]

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Council Set to Meeting Again After Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Knight, writing for The Only Colors, reports that in a 9-0
decision handed down on June 21, the Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled against the NCAA's limits on
education-related perks for college athletes in the case National
Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al. The ruling upheld
the decisions of the lower courts, striking down education-related
restrictions the NCAA had in place for student-athletes.

Judge Claudia Ann Wilken of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California had previously narrowly ruled
against the NCAA on the same grounds SCOTUS upheld on June 21.
Judge Wilken agreed with the NCAA about direct compensation for
student-athletes. However, she struck down provisions prohibiting
enhanced education benefits, ruling they were fair game for member
schools to provide even though the NCAA's argument was such
benefits would set up a bidding war between universities and
athletic conferences for top athletes. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court
upheld the District Court ruling last May.

Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for
SCOTUS, while Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring
opinion. The case originated as a class action lawsuit against the
NCAA filed by former West Virginia running back Shawne Alston and
former University of California center Justine Hartman,
representing other former men's and women's student-athletes.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that Judge Wilkin's original decision "stands
on firm ground -- an exhaustive factual record, a thoughtful legal
analysis consistent with established antitrust principles, and a
healthy dose of judicial humility."

The decision handed down does not allow for outright compensation
to student-athletes, or toss out the "amateur" model, either.
However, it does allow college and universities to offer even
greater financial and other benefits that are directly tied to
education moving forward. This means a school could try to find a
competitive advantage in recruiting student-athletes with promises
such as scholarships for graduate or vocational schools, graduate
internships, new laptops or other computer equipment related to
education, study-abroad programs, and even potentially small cash
awards for student-athletes who do well in the classroom.

The ruling also has no impact on the ongoing Name, Image, Likeness
(NIL) debate going on in the United State Congress, numerous state
capitals across the country, and in the NCAA and member
institutions. The NCAA was scheduled to meet last week to work on
NIL reforms after twice punting on the issue so far this year and
with a number of states set to have NIL laws go into effect on July
1 next week.

However, for now the final paragraph of Gorsuch's opinion seems a
fitting note to finish with in terms of the scope of the ruling and
purview SCOTUS had in its authority for review of the case
(emphasis added):

Some will think the district court did not go far enough. By
permitting colleges and universities to offer enhanced
education-related benefits, its decision may encourage scholastic
achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation
more consistent with the value they bring to their schools. Still,
some will see this as a poor substitute for fuller relief. At the
same time, others will think the district court went too far by
undervaluing the social benefits associated with amateur athletics.
For our part, though, we can only agree with the Ninth Circuit:
"'The national debate about amateurism in college sports is
important. But our task as appellate judges is not to resolve it.
Nor could we. Our task is simply to review the district court
judgment through the appropriate lens of antitrust law.'" 958 F.
3d, at 1265. That review persuades us the district court acted
within the law's bounds.

The judgement is affirmed.

NCAA Holding NIL Meeting This Week
Separately from the SCOTUS ruling this morning, the NCAA was set to
meet again last week to once again consider NIL rule changes. If
you don't recall my breakdown from last month on NIL, be sure to
check it out here. As mentioned in it, this week marks the NCAA's
next meeting, where the council will consider possible changes.

With the upcoming decision by the Division I Council, a number of
college conferences are reportedly jockeying for dumping the
proposal the NCAA was set to consider. A group of six conferences
consisting of the SEC, ACC, Pac-12, Sun Belt, SWAC, and MAAC want
the NCAA to take a more hands-off approach with NIL. Individual
schools would be responsible for enforcing NIL rules, and schools
in states where NIL laws exist will adhere to those rules, while
schools in states without NIL will have the opportunity to use NCAA
NIL rules.

It may also happen that the NCAA again punts on the issue into next
month, despite six states having NIL laws taking effect next
Thursday, July 1. With such different rule proposals being lobbied
suddenly, it may also be in the interest of everyone to wait until
next month and allow more time to consider alternative ideas. It
would also allow more time for a bipartisan national bill to take
shape, but if you are a betting person, the likelihood of a
breakthrough on talks on the topic happening between now and the
end of July, let alone an actual bill coming out of it and sailing
through both chambers, is about as likely as Jim Harbaugh winning a
national title at Michigan in his first six years as head coach in
Ann Arbor. [GN]


NATIONAL COUNSELING: Angione Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN ANGIONE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
COUNSELING GROUP, INC. and FRANCIS A. VIERA, JR. individually, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00344-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action in this Fair
      Labor Standards Act lawsuit;

   2. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action of
      individuals who are or were employed by the National
      Counseling Group, Inc. and Francis A. Viera, Jr. as
      Therapeutic Day Treatment Counselors ("TDTs") in Virginia at

      any time since June 1, 2017;

   3. approving Notice to the putative Plaintiffs;

   4. approving the Consent to Join Form; and

   5. directing the Defendants to produce, within two weeks of the

      date of the Court’s Order granting conditional
certification,
      a computer-readable database including the names of all
      employees similarly-situated to the Plaintiff who worked for

      NCG in Virginia as TDTs at any time since June 1, 2017,
      including their last known mailing address, home and cell
      phone numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment,
      positions, and dates positions were held at National
      Counseling Group, Inc.

National Counseling Group Inc. operates as a counseling services
provider.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
          hdl@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH LLP
          9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: SSmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  LDonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing Extension for Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKERLY MCFADDEN and
CASSANDRA WILSON, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No.
1:20-cv-00166-EGS-ZMF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending the time to file their motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local
Rule 23.1(b).

On April 20, 2020, the Court extended Plaintiffs' deadline to file
a motion for class certification until November 2, 2020. On October
2, 2020, Plaintiffs renewed their request, filing a second
unopposed motion to continue all dates an additional eight months.
On October 6, 2020, this Court granted that request, setting the
deadline to file a motion for class certification for July 2,
2021.

Because Defendant's position is that a 26(f) conference is
premature prior to entry of a scheduling order or scheduling
conference, Plaintiffs have been unable to take any discovery in
support of their claims or in support of a motion for class
certification. Thus, the Plaintiffs again request that the Court
extend their deadline to file a motion for class certification.

This putative class action was filed on January 22, 2020. Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 30, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition on April 13, 2020.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w1g4V9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

NCAA: Henderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ronaldo Henderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01500, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03308 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Holland Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dionte
Holland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01868-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., June 23, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Racanelli Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pasquale Racanelli, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01536, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03309 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Sharoye
Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01859-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 22, 2021).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


NCAA: Walker Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randolph Walker, Gari Jackson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01582, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 23, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03366 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


NETAPP INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2021, that the notice of appeal filed by the
plaintiffs in the purported securities class action suit filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, is pending.

On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its
executive officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided
on May 22, 2019.

Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided
revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020.

The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in
the market price of the company's shares following the issuance of
the revised guidance on August 1, 2019.

NetApp's Motion to Dismiss was granted and on February 26, 2021 and
the judge entered judgment in favor of NetApp. On March 26, 2021,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.


NEW YORK CITY: McQueen Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWAYNE MCQUEEN,
Individually and On behalf of a Class of All Others Similarly
Situated, and RAY CEDENO, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE
COMMISSIONER DERMOT SHEA, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, Police Officer Peter Ruotolo, Individually and in his
Official Capacity, Police Officer Omar Eltabib, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, and NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN AND
JANE DOES, Case No. 1:20-cv-04879-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on August 23, 2021 to enter an order:

   1. granting his request for class-certification under Rule 23
of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   2. for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

New York is the most populous city in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y13dUt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Alexander Klein, Esq.
           BARKET EPSTEIN KEARON ALDEA
           & LOTURCO, LLP
           666 Old Country Road, Ste. 700
           Garden City, NY 11530
           Telephone: (516) 745-1500

NEW YORK DOC: Must File Reply to Class Status Bid by August 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond v. New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Case
No. 9:20-cv-01380 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered
an order grantikng the Defendants' request for an extension of time
to respond to the motion to Certify Class:

   -- Response to Motion due by August 6, 2021.

   -- Reply to Response to Motion due by August 13, 2021.

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

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government that
maintains the state prisons and parole system.[CC]

NISSAN NORTH: Filing Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN
SINDOGI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No.
2:16-cv-01023-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties stipulate and move the
Court for an order extending the briefing schedule on the
Defendant's motions to exclude and re‐noting Plaintiff's motion
as follows:

            Event               Current             Proposed
                                Deadline            Deadline

   Deadline for Plaintiff      July 5, 2021        Aug. 13, 2021
   to File Responses to
   Defendant's Motions
   to Exclude

   Deadline for Defendant      July 9,2021         Sept. 3, 2021
   to File Replies in
   Support of Defendant's
   Motions to Exclude

   Noting Date for             July 9, 2021        Sept. 3, 2021
   Defendant's Motions
   to Exclude

   Noting Date for             Aug. 2, 2021        Sept. 3, 2021
   Plaintiffs' Motions
   for Class Certification

Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the
North American headquarters, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3joaedZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
          Benjamin Drachler, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, Washington 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
                  bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Justin G. Day, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247‐0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533‐0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Crueger, Esq.
          Erin Dickinson, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 North Oakland Avenue
          Whitefish Bay, WS 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210‐3868
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346‐2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346‐0022

The Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is represented by:

          Weston Dunn, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6800
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 344‐7600
          Facsimile: (206) 344‐3113
          E-mail: wddunn@shb.com

               - and -

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          Andrew L. Chang, Esq.
          H. Grant Law, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544‐1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391‐0281
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
                  achang@shb.com
                  hlaw@shb.com

               - and -

          William R. Sampson, Esq.
          Holly P. Smith, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474‐6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421‐5547
          E-mail: wsampson@shb.com
                  hpsmith@shb.com
                  Mark Cowing
                  mcowing@shb.com

NOMURA HOLDINGS: European Government Bonds Related Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nomura Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that Nomura International plc
(NIP) and Nomura Securities International, Inc. (NSI) continues to
defend class action suits related to the alleged manipulation of
the primary and secondary markets for European Government Bonds
(EGB).

NIP and NSI have been served with a class action complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging violations of U.S. antitrust law in relation to the
alleged manipulation of the primary and secondary markets for EGB.

NIP and NSI are also defendants in a separate class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging violations of U.S. antitrust
law relating to the alleged manipulation of the secondary trading
market for supranational, sub-sovereign and agency bonds.

Additionally, NIP and NSI are defendants in a similar class action
complaint filed in the Toronto Registry Office of the Federal Court
of Canada alleging violations of Canadian competition law.

Nomura Holdings, Inc. provides various financial services to
individuals, corporations, financial institutions, governments, and
governmental agencies worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Retail, Asset Management, and Wholesale. The company was
formerly known as The Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. and changed its
name to Nomura Holdings, Inc. in October 2001. Nomura Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert Related Deadline Extension Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH VILLAFAN, a single
man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but
separated man, v. NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington limited
liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING, residents
of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof; NORTHWEST
MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD and JANE
DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community composed
thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital communities
composed thereof; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties stipulate and
ask the Court to enter an order regarding the following pretrial
deadlines from the Minute Order Setting Trial and Related Dates:

                Event                  Current       Proposed
                                       Deadline      Deadline

-- Class certification discovery    Aug. 2, 2021    Nov. 2, 2021
   cut-off

-- Deadline for filing motions      Sept. 30, 2021  Dec. 30, 2021
   related to class
   certification

-- Disclosure of expert             Dec. 14, 2021   Jan. 14, 2022
   testimony under
   FRCP 26(a)(2)

-- Deadline for filing all          Dec. 30, 2021   March 30, 2022
   motions related to
   discovery

-- Deadline for all                 Jan. 27, 2022   April 27, 2022
   remaining discovery

-- Deadline for filing              March 24, 2022  May 24, 2022
   dispositive motions

-- Deadline for filing              March 31, 2022  May 31, 2022
   motions related
   to expert witnesses

-- Trial Date                       Aug 22, 2022   Sept. 26, 2022

A copy of the Parties motion dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y2clYM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS
          144 Railroad Ave., Suite No. 308
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: 425-582-8165
          Facsimile: 888-527-2710
          E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Martin J. Pujolar, Esq.
          Paul S. Smith, Esq.
          FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S.
          901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 689-8500
          Facsimile: (206) 689-8501
          E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law
                  psmith@foum.law

NVR INC: Cossaboom Seeks July 6 Extension to File Reply Brief
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA COSSABOOM f/k/a
MELISSA COLLINS, ANN ADAIR HATCH, and JOEL HUGHES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NVR, INC. and NVR
MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., Case No. 9:21-cv-80627-AM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
through July 6, 2021, for them to file Plaintiffs' Reply Brief, and
entering any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

On June 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for FLSA
Conditional Certification and Issuance of Court Authorized Notice.
On June 22, 2021, the Defendants filed their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A9cw6q at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed FLSA Collective
are:

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  kkienzle@nka.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          Florida Bar No. 114151
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-6697
          E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Barry J. Miller, Esq.
          Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
          Two Seaport Lane, Ste. 300
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 946-4800
          E-mail: bmiller@seyfarth.com
                  hmassey@seyfarth.com


OCUGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: OCGN) securities between February 2, 2021 and
June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ocugen investors
have until August 16, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/ocugen-inc/ to participate.

Ocugen is a biopharmaceutical company. Pursuant to an agreement
with Bharat Biotech, Ocugen has the exclusive right to develop,
manufacture, and commercialize COVAXIN, a vaccine candidate for
COVID-19.

On June 10, 2021, Ocugen announced that it would submit a biologics
license application ("BLA") for COVAXIN, which has a longer
approval process than an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
application, and that it anticipated conducting an additional
clinical trial to support the submission.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.62 per share, or
28%, to close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
information submitted to the FDA was insufficient to support an
EUA, (2) Ocugen would not file an Emergency Use Authorization with
the FDA; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Ocugen securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than August 16, 2021, to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Ocugen securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

OCUGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OCGN) securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Ocugen is a biopharmaceutical company. Pursuant to an agreement
with Bharat Biotech, Ocugen has the exclusive right to develop,
manufacture, and commercialize COVAXIN, a vaccine candidate for
COVID-19.

On June 10, 2021, Ocugen announced that it would submit a biologics
license application ("BLA") for COVAXIN, which has a longer
approval process than an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
application, and that it anticipated conducting an additional
clinical trial to support the submission.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.62 per share, or
28%, to close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
information submitted to the FDA was insufficient to support an
EUA, (2) Ocugen would not file an Emergency Use Authorization with
the FDA; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 16, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

OCUGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 20 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

EBS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17027&wire=1
VRUS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/verus-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17027&wire=1
OCGN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17027&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Emergent Biosolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS)
EBS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2020 -
April 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17027&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Emergent
Biosolutions Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose 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.

Verus International, Inc. (OTC PINK:VRUS)

VRUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 17, 2019 -
November 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/verus-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17027&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Verus
International, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Verus lacked the
requisite resources, infrastructure and/or expertise to exploit its
Big League Foods brand and its MLB license; (ii) the company's
issues in production ramp-up were not fully resolved to enable the
company to fulfill customer orders; (iii) as a result, the
company's prospects and outlook were not as represented; (iv) the
company's internal controls for financial reporting and accounting
were not sufficient with specific respect to stock-based
compensation and classification of equity instruments; (v) as a
result, the company's financial results, outlook and prospects were
materially worse than represented; and (vi) as a result of the
foregoing, the company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)

OCGN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 2, 2021
- June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17027&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ocugen,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the information submitted to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to support an
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an
EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements about
Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]

ORACLE CORP: Stockholder Putative Class Suit in California Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by an alleged stockholder of
the company.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

As noted above, Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief
Executive Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. On March 8,
2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for
false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business.


Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion,
giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020.

On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the
court held a hearing on this motion on September 24, 2020. On March
22, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part this motion.
The court dismissed the action as to one Oracle executive and the
former Oracle executive. The court permitted plaintiff to proceed
with only a narrow omissions theory against the remaining
defendants.

On April 21, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
Trial is scheduled to commence on November 6, 2023.  

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.


PACTIV LLC: Court Stays Rodriguez Class Action
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACK RODRIGUEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PACTIV LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00841-SB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order regarding the stipulation
of the Parties to stay Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is stayed in its
      entirety until the Court has ruled on plaintiff's motion for

      class certification in the Wilson v. Pactiv LLC et al., Case

      No. 5:20-cv-01691-SB (KKx);

   2. All currently pending and/or scheduled deadlines, hearings
      and conferences are vacated; and

   3. The Parties shall file a joint status update no later than 14

      days after the resolution of the Wilson class certification
      motion informing the Court of the status of the case.

Pactiv is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and food
service products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets,
restaurants, institutions and food service outlets across North
America.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AeNIu7 at no extra charge.[CC]

PARAGON INC: Rapper 'The Game' Stares Down $12M Joint Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
nasdaq.com reports that a U.S. federal court has granted a renewed
motion for plaintiffs to pursue a class-action lawsuit against a
crypto company, its defaulted employees and Jayceon Taylor, known
by his rapper stage name "The Game."

According to court documents, Taylor has been found jointly and
severally liable over allegations he pursued personal profit in an
unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) by Paragon, Inc.

Taylor promoted the Paragon ICO on social media in 2017, alongside
Jessica VerSteeg, a former beauty queen from Iowa, who is yet to be
found and has remained inactive from social media for over two
years.

It is alleged Paragon raised $12 million in unregistered digital
assets during its Paragon (PRG) token sale Aug. 15 through Oct. 15,
2017, and deceived investors on a promise of ludicrous returns.

"Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' renewed motion, the Court is
persuaded the allegations are sufficient to show that Taylor acted
for his own gain or for Paragon's gain and, thus, could be
considered a statutory seller," the document shows.

The latest judgment was handed down by magistrate Jeffrey S. White
in the U.S. Northern District Court of California where the
class-action was initially filed by disgruntled investors last
year, claiming the company had violated U.S. securities.

Paragon is an entity set up in July 2017 to "deploy a suite of
blockchain-enabled products to organize, systematize and bring
verification and stability to the cannabis industry," according to
filings from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Now, plaintiffs are seeking damages against VerSteeg, her partner
Egor Lavrov, Eugene "Chuck" Bogorad, Alex Emelichev, Gareth Rhodes
and Taylor in the amount of $12,066,000, plus prejudgment and
post-judgment interest.

Judge White granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for default
judgement for violations of the Securities Act and has ordered them
to file a status report showing how they intend to proceed by no
later than July 2. [GN]

PARKMOBILE LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Schaubach Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Schaubach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKMOBILE LLC, PARKMOBILE USA,
INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-01024-CJC-ADS (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the California Consumer Privacy
Act of 2018 (CCPA), following a data breach and the exposure of
millions of Californians' personal identifying information (PII).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to maintain
reasonable security controls and systems appropriate for the nature
of the PII they maintain as required by the CCPA. They also failed
to maintain proper measures to detect hacking and intrusion.
Because Defendants failed to maintain reasonable security measures
and disclosed their customers' unencrypted names in combination
with identification numbers, they have explicitly violated the
CCPA, the suit asserts.

As a result of the alleged data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members
have been injured in several ways because they face an imminent and
ongoing risk of identity theft and similar cyber crimes, will
expend time and money to protect against such cybercrimes, and did
not receive the benefit of their bargain with respect to data
privacy.

ParkMobile, LLC and Parkmobile USA, Inc.  provide solutions for
mobile payments and parking guidance using business analytics and
parking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Bid for Summary Judgment in Plymouth Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended April 24, 2021, that the company and Mr.
Scott P. Anderson's motion for summary judgment and a motion to
exclude plaintiff's expert, are pending.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report
and recommendation, among other things, recommends the dismissal of
all claims against individual defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen
Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.

On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation. On September 28, 2020, the
District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class,
appoint class representatives and appoint class counsel. On October
12, 2020, Patterson and the remaining individual defendant, Mr.
Anderson, filed a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of
the class certification order with the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals in which the defendants sought clarification of the
standard for rebutting the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance
in securities class actions.

On October 13, 2020, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion to
stay the underlying proceeding with the District Court pending the
possibility of interlocutory appeal. On November 9, 2020, the
District Court denied defendants' motion to stay and on November
12, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants'
Rule 23(f) petition.

On May 17, 2021, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion for
summary judgment and a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and
records relating to the issues raised in the securities class
action complaint and certain antitrust litigation."

Patterson Companies Inc. distributes dental products, veterinary
supplies for companion pets, and rehabilitation supplies. The
Company sells and markets to dental clinics and laboratories,
veterinarians, and to the physical and occupational therapy
markets. The company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.


PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Beverly Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug
Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004.

On March 8, 2021, Company stockholder Dawn Beverly, individually
and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 (the
Class), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Plug Chief
Executive Officer Andrew Marsh, and Plug Chief Financial Officer
Paul Middleton, captioned Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004.  

The Class Action Complaint includes two claims, for (1) violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated
thereunder (against all Defendants); and (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act (against Mr. Marsh and Mr. Middleton).  

The Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose that the Company (i) "would be unable to timely file its
2020 annual report due to delays related to the review of
classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right
to use assets with certain leases"; and (ii) "was reasonably likely
to report material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that as a result, "positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis,"
causing Class members losses and damages.

The Class Action Complaint seeks compensatory damages "in an amount
to be proven at trial, including interest thereon"; "reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action"; and "such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper."

Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.


PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Tank Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Tank v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03985.  

On May 4, 2021, Company stockholder Laxman Tank, individually and
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Plug
securities between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021, filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York a
complaint captioned Tank v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-03985 (S.D.N.Y.).  

The Tank Complaint is substantially similar to the Dawn Beverly et
al. v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the Class Action Complaint), asserting the same claims, for the
same damages, against the same Defendants as the Class Action
Complaint.

The Company anticipates that the Tank Complaint will be
consolidated with the Class Action Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.


PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Smolicek v. Plug Power Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02402.  

On March 18, 2021, Company stockholder Branislav Smolicek,
individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and
March 1, 2021, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California a complaint captioned Smolicek v. Plug Power
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02402 (C.D. Cal.).  

The Smolicek Complaint is substantially similar to the Class Action
Complaint, asserting the same claims, for the same damages, against
the same Defendants as the Class Action Complaint.

The Company anticipates that the Smolicek Complaint will be
consolidated with the Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y.) under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.


PROOFPOINT INC: Kent Files Securities Class Suit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Proofpoint, Inc., and the members of its
Board of Directors, Dana Evan, Kristen Gil, Gary Steele, Michael
Johnson, Elizabeth Rafael, Richard Wallace, Jonathan Feiber, Kevin
Harvey and Leyla Seka, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00861 (D. Dell.,
June 16, 2021), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing
the acquisition of Proofpoint by Proofpoint Parent, LLC, formerly
known as Project, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Project Kafka
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 Proofpoint
stockholder will receive $176.00 in cash for each share of
Proofpoint common stock they own. The proposed transaction is
valued at approximately $12.3 billion.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement fails to disclose
Proofpoint's financial projections, and the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the company's financial advisor Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of
interest. The complaint further alleges that Proofpoint's public
stockholders are prevented from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the merger because of the proxy
statement's material misrepresentations and omissions.

Proofpoint is a cybersecurity and compliance company that protects
organizations' assets and risks. Its common stock trades on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "PFPT."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROVENTION BIO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
July 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Provention Bio, Inc.
("Provention" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRVB) securities between
November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a
Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention
of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA").

On April 8, 2021, the Company published a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2,
2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of
the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of
clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."

On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the teplizumab
BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require
additional data to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Provention securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20,
2021, to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle") (NASDAQ: PCT)
between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17063&wire=5

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

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

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

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

QUEENS VILLAGE: Reed, et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits against Queens Village Committee
for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, et al.,
the Plaintiffs Madeline Reed, Ronald Sumter, Cynthia Spence and
Djuana Davis ask the Court to enter an order to:

   -- certify a Settlement Class;

   -- appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel;

   -- preliminarily approve the combined class action settlement
      agreement; and

   -- authorize Appropriate Notices to be Sent to the Class.

The suits are captioned as:

   "MADELINE REED, RONALD SUMTER, STEPHANIE PEMBERTON, AND CYNTHIA
   SPENCE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

   pension plan participants, and on behalf of the J-CAP PENSION
   PLAN,  v. QUEENS VILLAGE COMMITTEE FOR MENTAL HEALTH FOR JAMAICA

   COMMUNITY ADOLESCENT PROGRAM, Inc., Plan Administrator, The J-
   CAP Pension Plan; DIANE GONZALEZ, NANCY BRINN, and NILDA RUIZ,
   Fiduciaries, The J-CAP Pension Plan; DELAWARE CHARTER GUARANTEE

   AND TRUST COMPANY, d/b/a Principal Trust Co. Case No. 1:19-cv
   -03353-AMD-RM (E.D.N.Y.);"

   - and -

   "DJUANA DAVIS AND GLADYS SULLIVAN v. QUEENS VILLAGE COMMITTEE
   FOR MENTAL HEALTH FOR JAMAICA COMMUNITY ADOLESCENT PROGRAM,
   INC., Plan Administrator, The J-CAP Pension Plan; DIANE
   GONZALEZ, Fiduciary, The J-CAP Pension Plan, Case No. 18-cv-
   3114-AMD-RL (S.D.N.Y.)."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w6tfUJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Liebross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. LIEBROSS
          259-27 148 th Drive
          Rosedale, NY 11422
          Telephone: (212) 566-2151
          E-mail: rliebross@liebrosslaw.com

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq.
          1066 Union Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11225
          Telephone: 718-399-2013
          E-mail: lawoffice@edgarpauk.com

The Attorneys for Defendants Queens Village Committee for Mental
Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., Plan
Administrator, the J-CAP Pension Plan; Diane Gonzalez, Nancy Brinn
and Nilda Ruiz, Fiduciaries, the J-CAP Pension Plan, are:

          Kerstin M. Miller, Esq.
          SMITH & DOWNEY, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          320 E. Towsontown Blvd.
          Suite 1 East
          Baltimore, MD 21286

The Attorneys for Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust Company,
d/b/a/ Principal Trust Co., are:

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
          Groom Law Group, Chartered
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington., D.C. 20006

QVC INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANITRA ADAMS, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, v. QVC, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00646-JCJ (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
and implementing a procedure, whereby prospective opt-in plaintiffs
will be notified of Plaintiff's FLSA claims and given an
opportunity to join this action as party plaintiffs.

QVC is an American free-to-air television network, and flagship
shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping, owned by
Qurate Retail Group.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vUw1MN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff, are:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1131 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail :eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

RECKITT BENCKISER: To Pay $50M Class Settlement Over False Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
informa.com reports that settlement proposed in California federal
court provides cash refunds of $22 per product, up to three each,
to 4.7m claimants. Products identified in complaint include Schiff
Move Free Advanced, Moved Free Advanced Plus MSM and Moved Free
Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D.

A California federal court is expected to approve a class action
settlement with Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC agreeing to pay $50m to
plaintiffs alleging they were duped by false joint benefit claims
into purchasing Schiff Move Free Advanced products.

In the settlement proposed following four years of litigation on a
complaint filed in the US District Court for Northern California
– which combined separate complaints in California, Illinois, New
York and Vermont – 4.7m claimants will be entitled to cash
refunds of $22 per product, up to three each, without proof of
purchase. A judge was scheduled to consider approving the proposal
on 24 June.

If the settlement's "Common Fund is not fully depleted, claimants
will receive pro rata increases in compensation," the settlement
states. Additionally, certain named plaintiffs in the complaints
will receive larger refunds as well as payments for their personal
costs to provide RB with documents.

Products identified in the complaint and marketed by RB's Reckitt
Benckiser LLC US business include Schiff Move Free Advanced, Moved
Free Advanced Plus MSM and Moved Free Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin
D, containing glucosamine and chondroitin.

The class was generated after plaintiffs' attorneys subpoenaed the
US largest retailers, including Costco Wholesale Corp., Walmart
Inc., Walgreen Co. Rite Aid Corp., CVS Pharmacy, Inc. BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. for customer contact
information to identify potential members. The settlement
administrator in the litigation used the retailers' information to
provide direct notice of the settlement to those consumers.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Tim Blood, stated during a recent
Food and Drug Law Institute webinar that retailer loyalty programs
and advanced analytics on customer purchases are driving larger
class action settlements in the dietary supplement and food
sectors. (Also see "Retailers' Advances In Tracking Customer Data
Push Larger Class Action Settlements" - HBW Insight, 21 Jun,
2021.)

Nearly 7M Potential Class Members
Through data collected from retailers, the plaintiffs identified
$358.9m from sales of more than 16m of the products, during the
class period, May 29, 2015, to the date of the settlement's
preliminary approval. They also identified 6.18m class members who
purchased the products and will send 4.67m notices about the
settlement, according to the plaintiffs' motion filed in May for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

The plaintiffs, represented by Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP, both of San Diego,
also will promote the case to potential class members through a
multi-faceted online publication campaign.

"The internet banner advertisements will strategically appear on
relevant websites, social media platforms, and as a result of
organic searches that include relevant internet AdWords," say the
plaintiffs in the motion, noting the settlement also will be
publicized by an informational release published in English and
Spanish to around 16,500 US media outlets.

Several plaintiffs representing the class of consumers who
purchased Move Free alleged the firm violated California and New
York state business and advertising laws by promoting its product
as providing joint health benefits. They said the firm suggested
its products could treat osteoarthritis, as the products feature an
Arthritis Foundation logo.

The consumers' lawyers argued those claims are untrue, submitting
evidence showing more than a dozen studies over more than 20 years
found consumers treated with glucosamine or chondroitin – either
separately or together – did not experience an improvement in
pain or mobility.

RB: Label Disclaimer Sets Expectations
In a September 2019 motion for summary judgement, RB countered it
does not advertise the products as a treatment for osteoarthritis
and expressly states the products are not intended to diagnose,
treat, cure or prevent any disease.

The firm said the plaintiffs also only focus on glucosamine and
chondroitin and ignore other ingredients in the products that
benefit joint pain. The plaintiffs also relied primarily on
studies, meta-analyses and medical guidelines focusing on the two
ingredients as a treatment for disease, yet none of the studies
"focus on the effect of GC, let alone the products, on non-diseased
joints or on the joints of members," RB argued.

There were "too many individual factors" to certify a class or set
damages in the case, including how consumers interpreted ads for
the product and how dissatisfied they were, RB also contended.

Additionally, it pointed out the plaintiffs were challenging
structure/function claims allowed under the federal Food, Drug &
Cosmetic Act and the federal law pre-empts claims under state law
– an argument defendants commonly make in class action complaints
alleging false or misleading claims for supplements.

Judge: Federal Pre-emption Doesn't Apply
However, US District Judge Vince Chhabria denied RB's motion in a
March 2020 order.

He said the FD&C Act contains provisions governing what
manufacturers may print on supplement labels and it pre-empts state
law claims "attacking labels that comply with its rules." However,
"the key constraint, for the purpose of this litigation, is a ban
on statements implying that the supplement mitigates, treats, or
cures a specific disease or class of diseases," and some of the
assertions on the products in question "do just that, and so they
are not protected by the preemption provision."

While noting "confusion" over whether Move Free's labels made
implied disease statements or merely structure/function statements,
he said the question of whether the claims are misleading is one
that "could be decided by a jury."

The federal pre-emption argument recently worked for Target Corp.
in class action litigation, Greenberg V. Target. The US Circuit
Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Northern California District
summary judgment finding the retailer and manufacturer of its Up &
Up brand biotin product met federal structure/function claim
requirements with substantiation for the statement that biotin
"helps support healthy hair and skin."

During his FDLI webinar presentation, Blood suggested concern in
the plaintiffs' bar that federal pre-emption arguments will
strengthen the "halo effect" for structure/function claim on the
rest of a supplement's label. (Also see "Pre-Emption Rulings Could
Brighten 'Halo Effect' For Structure/Function Claims On Labeling" -
HBW Insight, 23 Jun, 2021.) [GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against RLX Technology, Inc. ('RLX'
or 'the Company') (NYSE:RLX) and certain of its directors,
officers, and underwriters on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired RLXAmerican Depository Shares ('ADS')
pursuant or traceable to RLX's January 2021 initial public stock
offering (the 'IPO' or the 'Offering'). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/rlx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
Registration Statement used to effectuate the Company's IPO
misstated and/or omitted facts concerning its then-existing
exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national
standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with
ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials
were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor
were they indicative of future results. The complaint alleges that
as a result, investors purchased RLX shares at artificially
inflated prices.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/rlx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inRLX you
have until August 9, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired RLX Technology Inc. ("RLX" or the "Company")
(NYSE: RLX) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares")
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO")

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

RLX purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which the Company claims is its "largest potential market."

In January 2021, RLX conducted its IPO, selling approximately 116.5
million ADSs) at $12 per ADS, raising approximately $1.4 billion in
gross proceeds.

On March 22, 2021, China's Ministry of Industry and Information
Technology posted draft regulations confirming that e-cigarettes
and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to traditional
tobacco offerings.

On this news, RLX's share price fell $9.31, or 48%, to close at
$10.15 per share on March 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on June 2, 2021, the Company announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting only a 48% increase in net revenues
quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that
its gross margin would "remain steady."

On this news, RLX's share price fell $0.97, or nearly 9%, to close
at $9.90 per share on June 4, 2021, thereby damaging investors
further. The Company's shares have traded as low as $7.89 per ADS,
or 32% below the IPO price.

The complaint alleges that Defendants overstated certain financial
metrics and failed to disclose that these metrics were not
indicative of future financial performance since regulators in
China were already working on a national standard for e-cigarettes
that would regulate them either under the same rules or in the same
manner as ordinary cigarettes.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired RLX ADSs pursuant or
traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than August
9, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on June 21
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) ("RLX") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired RLX American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") pursuant or traceable to RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering (the "IPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/rlx-technology-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rlx_technology
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500

RLX claims to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which it also claims is its "largest potential market." On January
22, 2021, the defendants priced the IPO at $12 per ADS and filed
the final prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement.

On June 2, 2021 RLX published its first quarter 2021 financial
results, announcing only a 48% increase in net revenues quarter
over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that its gross
margin would "remain steady." Following this news, RLX's shares
declined, closing on June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down nearly 9%
from its June 3, 2021 close of $10.87 per ADS. Before the
commencement of the lawsuit, RLX's shares traded as low as $7.89
per ADS, or more than 32% below the IPO price.

RLX investors may, no later than August 9, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sept. 1 Class Cert. Bid Filing Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEELE BRAY, individually,
and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers, v. SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC; EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-01759-KAD (D. Conn.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their propose
amended briefing schedule:

                                    Current             New
                                    Deadline          Deadline

-- Deadline to move for class    June 28, 2021     Sept. 1, 2021
   certification/dispositive
   motions

-- Oppositions to class          July 26, 2021     Sept. 29, 2021
   certification/dispositive
   motions

-- Replies in support of class   Aug. 16, 2021     Oct. 20, 2021
   certification/dispositive
   motions

Santander Consumer provides automotive financing services. Equifax
is located in Atlanta, Georgia and is part of the credit reporting
services industry. Experian Information operates as an information
services company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dr7RTI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant Experian is represented by:

          Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: 212-326-8321
          Facsimile: 212-755-7306
          E-mail: ktobitsch@jonesday.com

SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Two Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Clark, writing for MedPage Today, reports that like many
other healthcare systems besieged by ransomware attacks and their
repercussions, Scripps Health of San Diego is facing two
class-action lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim the five-hospital
system's leaders were negligent in failing to secure patient data
against breaches.

Each lawsuit is seeking at least $1,000 per violation and other
costs.

According to a letter that Scripps Health reportedly sent to
147,267 potentially affected patients, the breach began when an
"unauthorized person gained access to our network, deployed
malware, and, on April 29, 2021," acquired some documents
maintained by the Scripps system.

"Upon conducting a review of those documents, we determined that
one or more files may have reflected your name, address, date of
birth, health insurance information, medical record number, patient
account number, and/or clinical information, such as physician
name, date(s) of service, and/or treatment information," the letter
continued, according to its filing with the California Office of
the Attorney General.

The latest lawsuit filed June 7 in San Diego County Superior Court
on behalf of patient Johnny Corning asserted that because there
have been so many "high-profile data breaches" involving millions
of patients within the last 2 years, Scripps Health "knew or should
have known that its electronic records would likely be targeted by
cyber-criminals," but "failed to take appropriate steps" to keep
patients' protected health information from being compromised.

The failure was preventable, the lawsuit claimed, because the
Federal Bureau of Investigation warned potential targets repeatedly
of the possibility of such attacks involving hospitals.

Like many other healthcare systems besieged by ransomware attacks
and their repercussions, Scripps Health of San Diego is facing two
class-action lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim the five-hospital
system's leaders were negligent in failing to secure patient data
against breaches.

Each lawsuit is seeking at least $1,000 per violation and other
costs.

According to a letter that Scripps Health reportedly sent to
147,267 potentially affected patients, the breach began when an
"unauthorized person gained access to our network, deployed
malware, and, on April 29, 2021," acquired some documents
maintained by the Scripps system.

"Upon conducting a review of those documents, we determined that
one or more files may have reflected your name, address, date of
birth, health insurance information, medical record number, patient
account number, and/or clinical information, such as physician
name, date(s) of service, and/or treatment information," the letter
continued, according to its filing with the California Office of
the Attorney General.

The latest lawsuit filed June 7 in San Diego County Superior Court
on behalf of patient Johnny Corning asserted that because there
have been so many "high-profile data breaches" involving millions
of patients within the last 2 years, Scripps Health "knew or should
have known that its electronic records would likely be targeted by
cyber-criminals," but "failed to take appropriate steps" to keep
patients' protected health information from being compromised.

The failure was preventable, the lawsuit claimed, because the
Federal Bureau of Investigation warned potential targets repeatedly
of the possibility of such attacks involving hospitals.

According to an article published on June 22 in the San Diego
Union-Tribune, two additional class action complaints were filed on
June 21 in federal court alleging similar damages.

In terms of damage, the first two lawsuits in state court alleged
that Corning in particular was harmed because he was unable to
access his "MyScripps" portal, "which contained the ability to
communicate with doctors, access test results, request prescription
refills, manage appointments, pay as a guest, and view 'MyScripps'
video visit tutorials, which was necessary for his medical
treatment."

Corning spent an undisclosed amount of time and incurred anxiety
"attempting to restart his medical services/online medical classes,
verifying the legitimacy of the Data Breach, monitoring his medical
records for identity/information theft, and self-monitoring his
financial accounts" -- time that "has been lost forever."

Such stolen information, Corning's lawsuit claimed, can be sold
"for as much as $363 per record, according to the Infosec
Institute."

"Defendant could have prevented this Data Breach by properly
securing and encrypting the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members. Alternatively, Defendant could have destroyed the data
that was no longer useful, especially outdated data," the lawsuit
said.

In addition to the $1,000 per violation, Corning's lawsuit is
seeking actual damages and punitive damages of up to $3,000 per
plaintiff and class member, as well as attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and court costs.

Another lawsuit filed June 1 on behalf of Kenneth Garcia and
174,000 other patients believed to have been impacted by the breach
alleged that medical history, mental and/or physical condition or
treatment, including diagnosis and treatment dates, and other
personal information were kept on the Scripps Health computer
network "in a non-encrypted form."

As a result of the breach, the plaintiffs "have suffered damages
from the unauthorized release of their individual identifiable
'medical information.'"

Like many other healthcare systems besieged by ransomware attacks
and their repercussions, Scripps Health of San Diego is facing two
class-action lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim the five-hospital
system's leaders were negligent in failing to secure patient data
against breaches.

Each lawsuit is seeking at least $1,000 per violation and other
costs.

According to a letter that Scripps Health reportedly sent to
147,267 potentially affected patients, the breach began when an
"unauthorized person gained access to our network, deployed
malware, and, on April 29, 2021," acquired some documents
maintained by the Scripps system.

"Upon conducting a review of those documents, we determined that
one or more files may have reflected your name, address, date of
birth, health insurance information, medical record number, patient
account number, and/or clinical information, such as physician
name, date(s) of service, and/or treatment information," the letter
continued, according to its filing with the California Office of
the Attorney General.

The latest lawsuit filed June 7 in San Diego County Superior Court
on behalf of patient Johnny Corning asserted that because there
have been so many "high-profile data breaches" involving millions
of patients within the last 2 years, Scripps Health "knew or should
have known that its electronic records would likely be targeted by
cyber-criminals," but "failed to take appropriate steps" to keep
patients' protected health information from being compromised.

The failure was preventable, the lawsuit claimed, because the
Federal Bureau of Investigation warned potential targets repeatedly
of the possibility of such attacks involving hospitals.

According to an article published on June 22 in the San Diego
Union-Tribune, two additional class action complaints were filed on
June 21 in federal court alleging similar damages.

In terms of damage, the first two lawsuits in state court alleged
that Corning in particular was harmed because he was unable to
access his "MyScripps" portal, "which contained the ability to
communicate with doctors, access test results, request prescription
refills, manage appointments, pay as a guest, and view 'MyScripps'
video visit tutorials, which was necessary for his medical
treatment."

Corning spent an undisclosed amount of time and incurred anxiety
"attempting to restart his medical services/online medical classes,
verifying the legitimacy of the Data Breach, monitoring his medical
records for identity/information theft, and self-monitoring his
financial accounts" -- time that "has been lost forever."

Such stolen information, Corning's lawsuit claimed, can be sold
"for as much as $363 per record, according to the Infosec
Institute."

"Defendant could have prevented this Data Breach by properly
securing and encrypting the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members. Alternatively, Defendant could have destroyed the data
that was no longer useful, especially outdated data," the lawsuit
said.

In addition to the $1,000 per violation, Corning's lawsuit is
seeking actual damages and punitive damages of up to $3,000 per
plaintiff and class member, as well as attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and court costs.

Another lawsuit filed June 1 on behalf of Kenneth Garcia and
174,000 other patients believed to have been impacted by the breach
alleged that medical history, mental and/or physical condition or
treatment, including diagnosis and treatment dates, and other
personal information were kept on the Scripps Health computer
network "in a non-encrypted form."

As a result of the breach, the plaintiffs "have suffered damages
from the unauthorized release of their individual identifiable
'medical information.'"

Attorneys for the law firms filing these two cases declined to
speak on the record.

Scripps Health is a $2.9-billion private, nonprofit system with
3,000 physicians and five hospitals that treat 700,000 patients a
year and provides roughly one-third of patient care in the region.

In response to a request for comment, Chris Van Gorder, president
and CEO of Scripps Health, wrote in an email: "Anticipated these
days sadly. That's all I can say."

In a June 10 op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Van Gorder
described the "frustrating and challenging" situation for patients,
physicians, nurses, and staff, but noted a trend in attacks from
"threat actors" against numerous health systems around the country,
as well as in Ireland and New Zealand. He pointed out that there
was no unauthorized access to Scripps' electronic medical record
application, Epic, and no evidence to date that patient information
was used for fraudulent purposes.

Cyber-criminals have attacked multiple hospitals and health
information systems in the last 2 years, and lawsuits have
subsequently been filed against many of them, including Hackensack
Meridian Health in New Jersey; BJC Health System in St. Louis; DCH
Health System in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; and Rady Children's Hospital,
also in San Diego. [GN]

SCRIPPS HEALTH: Scott Cole & Associates Files Data Breach Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cole, class action veteran and founder of Oakland-based Scott
Cole & Associates, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Scripps Health for negligence, invasion of privacy and
related violations arising out of the health care provider's recent
high-profile data breach.

The personal information -- including names, drivers' license and
Social Security numbers and/or patient care records of nearly
150,000 Scripps Health patients was compromised in the massive data
breach announced by Scripps Health on June 1, 2021 yet known to the
organization for weeks prior. "That medical histories were accessed
in this data hack makes this situation unique," says Scott Cole,
the principal attorney on the case. "Despite hundreds of data
breaches every year in this country, most do not involve such
highly sensitive patient information as was obtained here." The
lawsuit claims Scripps Health maintained inadequate security
measures for detecting and addressing the cyber-attack, especially
given knowledge of a heightened threat.

In addition to monetary damages, the suit demands Scripps Health
implement and maintain sufficient security protocols going forward
so as to prevent future attacks. Of the numerous cyber-attacks, a
growing percentage of them target health care facilities and
patient records, given that such sensitive information is highly
valuable to cyber criminals.

The lawsuit is entitled Rubenstein, et al. v. Scripps Health
(U.S.D.C., Southern District Case No. 3:21-cv-01135-DMS-RBB). For
more information about this case, please contact Scott Cole &
Associates at info@scalaw.com or (510) 891-9800.

                ABOUT SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES

Since its inception in 1992, Scott Cole & Associates has litigated
countless matters against businesses of all types, and in nearly
every industry imaginable. It engages in California-based and
nationwide litigation as a well-known and widely-respected member
of the country's legal community. For decades, the firm has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for countless workers and
consumers, has been involved in record-setting resolutions and
corrected numerous unlawful practices.

Contacts:
Scott Cole & Associates
Scott Cole, (510) 891-9800
info@scalaw.com [GN]


SKILLZ INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Skillz, Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition
Corp. ("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under
21-cv-04662, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Skillz between December 16, 2020
and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks
to pursue remedies against Skillz and certain of the Company's
current senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Skillz securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Skillz is an internet tech company that was founded in 2012 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California. Skillz provides a
proprietary gaming platform for mobile gaming users and developers.
It connects players worldwide by hosting fee-based competitive
eSports games on its platform. Skillz also provides an integrated
"developer console" for its game developer customers that enables
them to create, rapidly integrate and monitor the performance of
their games on Skillz's platform. According to Skillz, its gaming
platform "allows us to deliver gaming experiences that our player
community trusts and loves and 'levels the playing field' for every
developer. We believe we are re-inventing competitive mobile gaming
and thereby expanding the mobile gaming market. Our technology
platform aligns the interests of developers and gamers with respect
to user monetization, instead of putting them at odds." Skillz
revenue is derived exclusively by taking a percentage of player
entrance fees in paid contests. In 2013, Skillz was kicked off of
the Google Play Store. Android users must know how to use the
Android Store or manually install the games.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements and omissions that
materially misrepresented Skillz's purported financial condition
and prospects. These materially misleading statements and omissions
included 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 billion, 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
third-party 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.

Skillz offers Bonus Cash in order to incentivize users and gamers
to engage with their platform. However, Skillz's disclosure is
materially incomplete since it fails to disclose that Bonus Cash
boomerangs back into the revenue stream. Essentially, Skillz has
the ability to offer millions of dollars in Bonus Cash and
simultaneously report millions of dollars in revenue. Had this
buried information been candidly disclosed, investors would have
had a more somber picture of the Company's growth potential.

Skillz's bullish market pronouncement misled investors into
believing that the Company was well-positioned for rapid long-term
growth. As one research analyst later described the result of
Skillz's strategy, "[i]ts just a pretty little piece of ice in the
water until you hit it and found out it's an iceberg."

That iceberg hit investors just four months after Skillz was taken
public. On March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research released a report
titled, "SKLZ: It Takes Little Skill to see this SPACtacular
Disaster Coming" (the "Wolfpack Report"). The Wolfpack Report
alleges that the growth speculations that Skillz and its insiders
had touted were "entirely unrealistic." The Wolfpack Report alleges
that Skillz's top three games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue
reported a decline in downloads since the third quarter of 2020. It
states that three games Skillz relies on for 88% of its revenue,
produced by two developers, Tether Studios and Big Run Studios, had
begun to decline prior to Skillz going public. Downloads of these
games all declined by 52% (21 Blitz), 40% (Soliatare Cube), and 20%
(Blackout Bingo) in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Wolfpack Report
concluded that Skillz buried this decline in downloads and revenue
in its disclosures while continuing to tout massive future revenue
growth.

The Wolfpack Report also reveals that Skillz is not taken seriously
by industry experts because Skillz's platform is not robust enough
to handle synchronous play and international matchmaking. Skillz is
also banned from the Google Play Store, a major conduit for game
developers. The Wolfpack Report also shows that Skillz has a
history of boasting about future partnerships that either do not
have tremendous value, or never amount to anything. Lastly, the
Wolfpack Report alleges that CEO Paradise is not as experienced as
Skillz purports to claim and in fact has been involved several
failed businesses.

Upon release of the Wolfpack Report, Skillz stock plummeted 10.9%
to close at $24.45, down $3 from the previous day. This decline
represented close to a $762 million loss in market value.

Soon thereafter, on March 15, 2021, a Twitter user known as
"@Restrinct" published a report highlighting issues with Skillz's
unsustainable business model, unrealistic growth projections and
tremendous sales and marketing spending.

Finally, on April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous
report on Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of
providing users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely
recognizes substantial non-cash revenue, and [] cash revenues may
be less than ½ of GAAP revenue". On this news, SKLZ shares
declined 6.61% to close at $14.11 (a decline of $1 from the
previous day) on April 19, 2021 and shares further declined the
next day to an all-time low of $12.55. The decline represented $254
million in loss of investor value.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]

SMALLCAKES STEEL: Hathaway Sues Over Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------
Miranda Hathaway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.  Smallcakes Steele Creek, LLC,
Smallcakes Ballantyne, LLC, Ian Bowleg and Ayanna Bowleg,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00290 (W.D. N.C., June 16, 2021), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked
exceeding forty in a workweek, statutory penalties, including
liquidated damages, costs and fees and penalties for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina labor laws.

Smallcakes Ballantyne and Smallcakes Steele Creek are franchised
cupcake bakeries and creamery, selling cupcakes, ice cream and
other products where Hathaway worked as a cashier. She alleges that
Smallcakes retained for itself all tips collected via the credit
card processing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
      Nicole K. Haynes, Esq.
      John G. Hutchens III, Esq.
      GESSNERLAW, PLLC
      602 East Morehead Street
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Tel: (704) 234-7442
      Fax: (980) 206-0286
      Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
             nicole@mgessnerlaw.com
             johnny@mgessnerlaw.com


SONY MUSIC: Could Face Sexual Harassment Class Suit in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
completemusicupdate.com reports that a dozen former employees of
Sony Music in Australia have approached a law firm in Sydney to
discuss a possible class action lawsuit against the music major in
relation to allegations of bullying and harassment, with a lawyer
at said firm encouraging other staff members past and present to
come forward if they have similar complaints.

It follows the announcement that the long-time chief of Sony Music
Australia, Denis Handlin, was departing the company with immediate
effect, which in turned followed reports that the major's US HQ was
now investigating claims of a toxic corporate culture at its
Australian division.

As Handlin's departure was confirmed, The Guardian published an
article based on interviews with more than 20 former employees at
Sony Music Australia that included allegations of sexual harassment
at work events, intimidating behaviour, alcohol abuse and the
unfair treatment of women in the workplace. Handlin himself was not
accused of harassment, however many of the interviewees were
critical of the outgoing CEO for overseeing such a toxic working
environment.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Lauren MacDougall from law
firm MacDougall And Hydes has confirmed that she has been
approached by multiple former Sony Music employees regarding
possible legal action.

She said: "I have been approached by a number of women who were
seeking legal advice in relation to claims of bullying and
harassment during their time at Sony Music Australia. I would
encourage any other women or men to come forward. Depending on how
many people come forward and what they have to say there is the
potential of a class action".

MacDougall added that she is still to talk to some of the people
who have been in touch with her firm and therefore is not yet able
to comment on what specific form any class action might take.

The Herald also reports that at least one of the women who has
contacted MacDougall And Hydes has appointed the law firm to
represent her as part of Sony's own internal investigation.

Explaining why such representation was required, the newspaper
quotes one former employee as saying: "Sony Music has let us down
time and time again, many of us don't feel safe speaking with the
organisation or its local counsel. It's comforting to know there is
finally someone out there representing our rights that can support
us in navigating the complexities of this process". [GN]

SOUTHERN THERAPY: Filing of Reply to Class Cert Opposition Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BAILEY and LANA
LUFT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN THERAPY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02445-SDG
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file
plaintiff's reply to defendants' response in opposition to
plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional certification and notice
to potential class members

The Plaintiffs' new deadline to submit their Reply is July 5, 2021,
says Judge Grimberg.

Southern Therapy Services, Inc. is a therapist-owned rehabilitation
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A7lQIe at no extra charge.[CC]

SPECTRUM HEALTH: Black Employees Mull Suit Over Systemic Racism
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Starkman, writing for Deadline Detroit, reports that "Are you
familiar with a phenomenon called West Michigan Nice?" the caller
began.

I assured the caller I did and recounted the time I visited Grand
Rapids with a lifelong New Yorker who after a day of meetings at a
local banking company said, "I need to get out of this town. I
can't take the f-----n niceness anymore."

To many current and former Black employees at Grand Rapid-based
Spectrum Health, which jointly announced with Southfield-based
Beaumont Health they are seeking to merge, the niceness masks a
racist façade that forced them to endure what they say are
continuous discriminatory and humiliating conditions. This includes
a Black Spectrum worker who said colleagues observed the employee
being examined in a near-naked state while undergoing a hospital
exam. The Spectrum employee insisted the modesty of a white
employee would be respected, and that it wasn't the first patient
privacy violation they experienced.

Spectrum in the past two years has experienced a significant
turnover of Black employees in its seemingly troubled HR
department, an alarming development given that HR is responsible
for implementing what CEO Tina Freese Decker says is her biggest
priority: Building a health system that "celebrates and reinforces
diversity and inclusion." The challenge filing a lawsuit is that
when Black employees leave because of what they perceive as
intolerable conditions, they are given payouts if they agree to not
talk publicly about their concerns.

Spectrum Health's chief human resources officer is Pam Ries, who
joined the company two decades ago and has held various HR
leadership positions.

Black employees who remain at Spectrum are frightened to speak out,
particularly in the wake of Spectrum's announcement to merge with
Beaumont. If the merger proceeds, a combined Spectrum and Beaumont
would create Michigan's largest health system and employer. A
company allowed to achieve that kind of might will be able to crush
any employee who challenges it, and possibly prevent that person
from ever again working in Michigan healthcare, and maybe anywhere
else in the country.

Blacks in Grand Rapids are especially vulnerable. Forbes in 2015
ranked Grand Rapids second only to Milwaukee among U.S. cities
where Blacks were experiencing the most economic hardship. A 2017
report by the NBC affiliate in Grand Rapids on the 50-year
anniversary of the city's riots found economic conditions had
worsened since the unrest.

Said a Black resident who relocated to Grand Rapids from another
city: "Moving to Grand Rapids is like moving back in time."

Exploring Group Lawsuit

What sparked Spectrum's Black employees to consider a class action
lawsuit was a 90-day performance review of a Black female employee,
which characterized her as "whip smart," "a great question asker,"
"genuine," "very thoughtful" and "very gracious." The review also
said the employee must be "very mindful of her nonverbals and tone
(e.g. facial cues, furrowed brows, pursed lips)." The employee was
also instructed to "build her resilience and Teflon" and to avoid
asking "direct why" questions.

Other Spectrum Black employees were cautioned about being
"confrontational," and urged to monitor their "nonverbal cues," and
their speaking "tone." Spectrum's Black employees say criticisms of
being subtly hostile are aimed only at them. If true, the
criticisms might be deemed racist given that Grand Rapids rivals
California as home to some of the most passively aggressive people
in the country. Ken Bogard, a consultant in suburban Grand Rapids,
has written about how "West Michigan Nice," can be detrimental to a
corporation.

Understandably, no Spectrum employees were willing to speak on the
record. But Deadline Detroit has confirmed that some current and
former Black Spectrum employees have engaged an attorney to review
some incidents they believe are racist or discriminatory to
determine if there are sufficient grounds for a class action
lawsuit and whether to continue gathering evidence.

Among the incidents:

A Spectrum leader used the N-word during a team meeting and never
faced any known disciplinary action.

A Black female employee was repeatedly confused with another
colleague, despite a considerable height difference and hairstyle.

On June 19, 2020 Spectrum held a virtual "Day of Understanding,"
where Black employees were asked to share their experiences with
racial injustices. Among the comments posted by employees in a chat
session: "It's so sad that Black people are so sensitive," "I
resent assumptions whites are privileged," "too much
fatherlessness," "exaggerated response to specific injustices," and
"going downhill fast."

Spectrum workers accompanied a Black colleague to a company
hospital after the employee suffered a health incident that
rendered them unconscious. The employee discovered that colleagues
remained while the employee was being examined and observed the
employee in a near naked state. The employee has filed a HIPPA
complaint, asserting their patient privacy rights were violated.

Patient privacy increasingly doesn't appear to be one of Spectrum's
strengths. A local television station reported in March that OBGYN
residents were posting photos of themselves on social media holding
surgically removed organ and tissue material and playing a game
they likened to the "Price is Right." Spectrum has not publicly
disclosed the results of the internal investigation that it said
would be launched when the television report first aired. My
understanding is the residents are still working at Spectrum.

Lower-Paying Jobs

Blacks at Spectrum disproportionately work in lower paying jobs,
according to Black employees. Spectrum encourages employees
experiencing economic hardship to utilize the company's subsidized
food program. Black employees say a more meaningful gesture for
Spectrum's lower-paid staff would be to pay them more so they could
afford to pay for their own meals.

An indifference to helping reverse the struggles of employees on
the lowest end of the pay scale might be a Grand Rapids thing.

Beaumont COO Carolyn Wilson, whose primary home is Grand Rapids,
issued this response in December 2019 when asked why Beaumont had
chronic support staff shortages at its hospitals in the southern
Metro Detroit area: "We have a hard time filling positions when
(people can) go to Walmart at $12 a minimum to start." Crain's
Detroit Business reported at the time Wilson made that comment,
Beaumont housekeepers started at $10 an hour. Wilson earns about $2
million a year.

Walmart has since raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour. So has
Beaumont, but only after the company kept losing staff to Henry
Ford Hospital and other companies that were paying higher wages.

I reached out on June 21 to Spectrum's PR team and shared with them
the salient details of this article, but never heard back. They
possibly are following the example of Beaumont spokesman Mark
Geary, who typically ignores my requests for comment, except when
some serious legal issues might be involved, such as when I
reported that a Beaumont executive and surgeon was pressuring
orthopedic surgeons to use medical devices they considered
inferior.

The joint Spectrum and Beaumont merger announcement was bare bones,
disclosing only that the hospital companies planned to merge, but
offered few specifics. The release made broad based claims that
multiple studies demonstrate are untrue, including that the merger
will result in better and lower cost patient care for
Michiganders.

One need to only look to California, where Sutter Health achieved
market dominance in the northern part of the state and then was
charged with illegally driving up prices and stifling competition.
Sutter in 2019 settled a landmark antitrust case brought by
California's attorney general for $575 million. Sutter likely still
came out ahead with its alleged overcharging.

There is no evidence to suggest that Michigan Attorney General Dana
Nessel has the resolve, or even the legal smarts, to take on a
major antitrust case. Nessel remained silent while Beaumont
imploded in the past 15 months, and she's taken no meaningful
measures to curb Oakland County's rampant court guardian elder
abuse, among the most extensive in the country.

The joint Spectrum and Beaumont release didn't disclose the
financial terms of the merger or refer to Beaumont's $3.5 billion
cash reserve, which technically belongs to southeastern Michigan
residents. The release also made no mention of COO Wilson, and
what, if any, role she will play in the merged organization. Under
the terms of an earlier merger deal Beaumont CEO John Fox tried to
pull off with Illinois-based Advocate Aurora, Wilson was expected
to oversee the merged companies' southeastern Michigan operations.

Michiganders appear comfortable living in a state whose government
ranks dead last for transparency. Despite virtually no material
details being disclosed, the fix is already in on the
Spectrum/Beaumont merger.

Rep. Andy Levin, whose district includes Beaumont's flagship Royal
Oak hospital, has let it be known he's not likely going to get in
the way. Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Debbie Dingell, whose
districts are served by Beaumont's two- and three-star rated
southern hospitals, have yet to say boo about the merger. If I was
in their shoes, I'd be demanding some very specific commitments to
improve the substandard Beaumont hospitals servicing their
constituencies.

For all Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's talk about her concern for
achieving healthcare equity, I expect she will remain silent as
well. Whitmer believes that healthcare equity can be achieved by
requiring all Michigan healthcare professionals to undergo two
hours of implicit bias training to be licensed in the state.

Unless there is some federal intervention, I expect Spectrum and
Beaumont to complete their union by the fall, as is their plan.
When the deal is consummated, I will be embarrassed for Spectrum
Health's directors. The company's board is comprised of qualified
executives and leaders who have demonstrated an admirable
commitment to the residents of Western Michigan. The same can't be
said for Beaumont's directors, whose backgrounds aren't even
disclosed.

Under the proposed terms of the merger, the merged board will be
comprised of eight Spectrum directors, seven Beaumont directors,
and one additional director to be named. I can't imagine the
Spectrum directors will have much respect for the Beaumont
directors who allowed the once great hospital system they were were
entrusted to safeguard implode.

Rest assured, the Spectrum directors will exude some "Western
Michigan Nice" so the failed Beaumont directors can remain
oblivious to what their Grand Rapids colleagues are really
thinking. [GN]

STARBUCKS CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 18, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY CONNELLY, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00746-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone entered a scheduling
order:

   1. Amendment and Discovery Deadlines:

      -- Amendment of Pleadings:         September 17, 2021

      -- Pre-Certification Discovery:    December 17, 2021

   2. Class Certification Deadlines:

      -- Motion Filing:                  January 18, 2022

      -- Opposition:                     March 1, 2022

      -- Reply:                          March 22, 2022

      -- No Hearing                      Shall Be Set

Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational chain of
coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. As the world's largest coffeehouse chain, Starbucks is
seen to be the main representation of the United States' second
wave of coffee culture.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ULBI2U at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Court Modifies Class Certification Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John E. Jaunich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 0:20-cv-01567-PAM-BRT
(D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Becky R. Thorson entered an order that:

   -- The date by which State Farm must file its response brief to
      a motion for class certification (including class
      certification expert disclosures) is extended to August 5,
      2021.

   -- The date by which Plaintiff must file his reply brief in
      support of his motion for class certification (including
      class rebuttal certification expert disclosure) is extended
      September 14, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qBl9Cx at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Sheldon Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON R. SHELDON, STEVEN
HUNSBERGER, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01080-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All individuals who signed the State Farm TICA Agreement,
      within the United States of America, as "TICA", during the
      Class Period;"

      The Class Period is the time period beginning on the date
      established by the Court’s determination of any applicable

      statute of limitations, after consideration of any tolling
      and accrual issues, and ending on the date of entry of
      judgment;

   2. appointing Jason Sheldon and Steven Hunsberger as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil and

      Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb as class counsel.

ERISA expressly authorizes any plan participant to bring suit in a
representative capacity on behalf of a plan in order to secure
remedies, including benefits due under the terms of the plan and
equitable relief. 29 U.S.C. sections 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a).
Because of their derivative nature, "claims brought under section
502(a)(2) are paradigmatic examples of claims appropriate for
certification as a Rule 23(b)(1) class, as numerous courts have
held." In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585, 604
(3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted, emphasis added). This case is no
exception. All of the claims in this case arise from plan-level
conduct on the part of State Farm that impacted all of the TICAs
the same in relation to plan benefits.

James R. Sheldon and Steven Hunsberger worked for the Defendants as
Term Independent Contractor Agents (TICA), and filed this lawsuit
on behalf of themselves and a class of over 11,000 TICAs that
worked for State Farm.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold State Farm accountable for violating
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
Defendant violated ERISA by improperly classifying its TICAs as
independent contractors and denying TICAs 401(k), retirement, and
pension benefits.

State Farm Insurance is a large group of insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dm78Dm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          D.G. Pantazis, Esq.
          Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
          FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0557
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE MIELKE CHAVEZ ONEIL
          10 W. State Street Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-7450
          E-mail: ecc@fmcolaw.com

SUBWAY: Fake Tuna Class Action Focuses on Sustainability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that a
class-action lawsuit that questioned whether the tuna served at
U.S. sandwich chain Subway is actually tuna is now focusing on the
veracity of the restaurant chain's sustainability claims.

In January 2021, plaintiffs Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin said in a
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California that the "tuna in Subway's sandwiches and
wraps is a "mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute
tuna, yet have been blended together by [Subway] to imitate the
appearance of tuna."

The plaintiffs did not say which ingredients Subway uses in place
of tuna.

Now, in an amended complaint filed earlier this month, the
plaintiffs are targeting Subway's marketing and advertising claims
that its tuna is 100 percent sustainably-caught skipjack and
yellowfin tuna, and that its tuna does not contain "tuna species
that come from anything less than healthy stocks, for example
albacore and tongol."

The plaintiffs are also still contending that Subway's claims that
it utilizes 100 percent tuna are false.

The Subway class action suit is just the latest in a rash of
sustainability-related lawsuits against seafood suppliers,
retailers, and restaurants.

A class-action complaint brought against Red Lobster earlier this
month alleges that the massive restaurant chain's farmed shrimp and
Maine lobster are not sustainably sourced, as the company claims
they are. Filed by a consumer in U.S. District Court in California,
the complaint claims that Red Lobster's shrimp is sourced from
"industrial shrimp farms that do not employ the highest
environmental or animal welfare standards" and its Maine lobster is
sourced from suppliers that use environmentally destructive
practices that threaten endangered populations of North American
right whales.

Earlier this month, in a complaint filed in the U.S. Superior Court
in the District of Columbia, ALDI was also accused of false
advertising and marketing, with the advocacy group GMO/Toxin Free
USA alleging ALDI's claim that its salmon is sustainably sourced is
not credible.

In addition, Mowi agreed to settle a similar lawsuit for USD 1.3
million (EUR 1.1 million) earlier this year. The complaint alleged
that the sustainability claims on its Ducktrap River of Maine
smoked salmon were false.

In Subway's case, "defendants know and/or should have known about
vulnerabilities in their tuna supply chain that result in the sale
of product throughout California giving rise to deceptive
advertising and misbranding of the products," the amended complaint
stated.

"Defendants do not take sufficient measures to control or prevent
the known risks of adulteration. On the contrary, they actively
perpetuate actions and steps that encourage mixing non-tuna
ingredients into the products," the complaint said.

The "tuna" that is used in Subway's California-based locations
comes to each restaurant in a sealed vacuum bag that has been
prepackaged outside the United States, the plaintiffs said. As a
result, the restaurant chain lacks "a reliable and standardized
protocol to ensure that the contents of these sealed vacuum bags
are actually tuna."

Consumers paid a premium for Subway's tuna sandwiches and wraps,
because they were advertised as 100 percent sustainably-caught
skipjack and yellowfin tuna, the complaint stated.

"In fact, neither plaintiffs nor any of the member of the putative
class received the food product they reasonably thought they were
buying," it said.

The complaint does not address specifics on why Subway's
sustainability claims are not truthful.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and Subway did not respond to
SeafoodSource's requests for comment. [GN]

SUCOCITRICO CUTRALE: Faces UK Class-Action Lawsuit Over Oligopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Brazilian newspaper Diario da Regiao, the initial
hearings related to the class action lawsuit against Jose Luis
Cutrale, his son Jose Luis Cutrale Jr, and his family's
multinational company Sucocitrico Cutrale started on June 21.

The plaintiffs are demanding damages related to the actions of an
orange juice cartel that illegally created oligopoly conditions for
Sucocitrico Cutrale (Cutrale), among other members linked to the
cartel, by artificially reducing the volumes of oranges purchased,
suppressing orange purchase prices, and imposing additional costs
on independent farmers.

The plaintiffs are seeking to establish jurisdiction in the United
Kingdom because Jose Luis Cutrale lives in London and the
administration of his company is also carried out in that country.

The international law firm PGMBM represents the group of
plaintiffs, made up of 1,525 independent Brazilian orange growers,
22 entities in the orange growing business, and a charitable
foundation; all harmed by the cartel.

The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), the
Brazilian antitrust regulatory agency, has already concluded that
the defendants and other members of the cartel had unequivocally
engaged in anti-competitive practices for several years.

In fact, in November 2016, the defendants and other members of the
cartel signed termination commitments with CADE, in which they
admitted to having participated in this type of anti-competitive
practices between January 7, 1999, and January 24, 2006. They
agreed to pay fines totaling 301 million reais for violating
Brazilian antitrust law; however, the fine was an administrative
sanction and was not intended to compensate people harmed by the
cartel.

Pedro Martins, lawyer and partner of PGMBM, stressed: "Cutrale has
admitted participating in anti-competitive practices in Brazil that
have destroyed small and large companies, and independent
producers, which in many cases went bankrupt."[GN]

TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Tarena
International, Inc. ("Tarena" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 16,
2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 23, 2021.           

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

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tarena employees actively interfered with
audits of the Company's financial statements for certain periods.
The Company failed to maintain the accuracy of the revenue and
expenses it reported. The Company engaged in transactions with
related parties that were in some cases not properly disclosed.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Tarena, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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


TARGET CORP: Regular Rate Class Certified in Bowen Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aisha Bowen, et al. v.
Target Corporation, et al.Case No. 2:16-cv-02587-JGB-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order that:

   1. the Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to the proposed
      Reimbursement Class.

   2. the Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to the proposed Regular

      Rate Class, defined as:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant
      Target Corporation in the State of California during the
      period of December 7, 2011 through the date of this Order and

      who were paid a shift differential and/or holiday premium pay

      during at least one workweek that they earned overtime wages

      during the Class Period."

   3. Claims derivative of the RROP Claims are also certified.

   4. The Plaintiffs Aisha Bowen and Stacey Williams are appointed

      as the representatives for the class.

   5. Matern Law Group, PC and Matthew J. Matern, Matthew W.
      Gordon, and Mikael H. Stahle are appointed as Class Counsel.

   6. Target shall produce, within 14 calendar days of the entry of

      this Order, the updated class list, including names,
      addresses and telephone numbers, of class members to Class
      Counsel.

   7. The parties shall meet and confer as to the content of the
      class notice, and within 10 calendar days of this Order's
      entry, lodge with the Court a proposed class notice and any
      necessary complementary documents. If the parties are unable

      to agree to the content of a class notice, within 15 days of

      this Order's entry each party is directed to submit a draft
      class notice.

   8. The June 28, 2021 hearing is vacated.

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff Aisha Bowen filed a class action
complaint against Defendant Target Target in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Target removed on April 14, 2016. On May 20, 2016,
Ms. Bowen amended her complaint for the first time.

On June 2, 2016, the Court approved the joint stipulation and
ordered proceedings on all meal-period claims stayed for the
duration of the Thompson case. On May 14, 2018, the parties in
Thompson entered into a settlement agreement settling all
meal-period claims through May 5, 2018. The Court approved the
settlement on August 2, 2018.

On December 3, 2019, Ms. Bowen amended her complaint once
again—adding new named Plaintiffs and new claims. The SAC alleges
nine causes of action: (1) failure to provide required meal
periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure
to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5)
failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees;
(6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7)
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices;
and (9) penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA), as a representative action.

On January 24, 2020, the Court dismissed claims Two, Eight, and
Nine to the extent each claim relied on an on-premises rest period
theory of liability pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Target. The Plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration and to
certify interlocutory appeal, which the Court denied on March 27,
2020. On January 5, 2021, the Court granted Target partial summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' Sixth and Ninth causes of action. On March
5, 2021, the Court denied Target's motion for leave to file a
second motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed
the Motion on January 25, 2021.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The
eighth-largest retailer in the United States, it is a component of
the S&P 500 Index.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jqAJ2x at no extra charge.[CC]


TAX RISE: Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing to August 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICAH WATKINS, on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated, v. TAX RISE, INC.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00029-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting their request to continue the
class certification hearing from July 12, 2021 August 9, 2021.

The Defendants says that this is the first time its counsel is
requesting a continuous. This request to continue is not being made
for any improper purpose or delay.

Tax Rise is located in Irvine, California, and is part of the Legal
Services Industry.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gZGp1B at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony Marcus, Esq.
          ANTHONY MARCUS LAW FIRM
          406 Orchid Ave. No.  831
          Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
          Telephone: (949) 463-2727
          E-mail: anthonylmarcus@gmail.com

TRADER JOE'S: Court Dismisses Amended Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on June 14, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed without prejudice the
first amended complaint in a consumer class action lawsuit against
Trader Joe's over the claim 'Vanilla Flavored With Other Natural
Flavors' on the product label of the grocery chain's Vanilla Almond
Clusters cereal that the plaintiff alleged derived most of its
vanilla flavor from vanillin and ethyl vanillin rather than vanilla
bean.

The Court decided in favor of Trader Joe's on the key issues that
(1) Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted because the label
complies with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations
defining when flavors can be described as "natural" and when they
must be labeled "artificial," and (2) Plaintiff has not plausibly
alleged that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by their
labeling because no facts were alleged to support that a reasonable
consumer could interpret the cereal's label to mean that the flavor
is derived exclusively from the vanilla plant. In keeping with the
decisions in numerous other cases, the Court found that use of
"Vanilla Flavored" alone does not require a product so-labeled to
be flavored exclusively with vanilla and with respect to "With
Other Natural Flavors," specifically found that vanillin is not
automatically considered an artificial flavoring under FDA's
regulations as it may be either artificial or natural, depending
upon its derivation. With respect to ethyl vanillin, which the
Plaintiff alleged was detected in the cereal at a concentration of
6.53 parts per billion by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
analysis, the Court objected to the lack of a control condition in
the testing and the absence of information on whether "such an
infinitesimal amount is material or significant." Thus, finding
that the first amended complaint, as drafted, does not plausibly
allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the product
label representations, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff's
statutory claims fail as a matter of law.

We have reported on a variety of vanilla flavoring class action
lawsuits, many of which have not survived the motion to dismiss
stage. The Court in this case did not speak to the claim by Trader
Joe's in its January 19, 2021 motion to dismiss that this vanilla
flavoring lawsuit is one of 110 filed by the plaintiff's counsel,
Spencer Sheehan, in 18 months. A second amended complaint may be
filed within 20 days of the order. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: To Shift Operations After Ontario Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Deschamps at The Canadian Press reports that Uber's Canadian
ride-hailing and food-delivery business will shift from being based
in the Netherlands to Canada - a change that will affect its tax
bill.

The San Francisco, Calif. tech giant said the shift in its Canadian
operations will come into effect on July 1 and will require Uber to
collect sales tax that will be remitted to the government.

The company said the shift will result in no new fees for most
restaurants, drivers or couriers, but current fees will be subject
to GST, PST and HST and those using its Eats Pass subscription
program might also see a sales tax introduced.

The change will allow restaurants, drivers and couriers to claim
tax credits and will require them and other users of Uber's apps to
sign new agreements with Uber's new Canadian entities.

The company said it has been considering and working toward
shifting its Canadian operations from the Netherlands since 2018
and has already made similar moves in the regions of Australia-New
Zealand and Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Uber began considering the move after Ontario Uber Eats driver
David Heller filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in
2017.

Heller was hoping to get Uber to recognize drivers as employees and
provide them with a minimum wage, vacation pay and other
protections under the Employment Standards Act.

Uber fought the case and obtained a stay because it had a contract
clause requiring all disputes to go through mediation in the
Netherlands, where it was incorporated.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which sided
with the drivers in 2020 and paved the way for the class-action
lawsuit to seek certification.

Uber eventually amended its dispute resolution protocols to allow
arbitration to occur in the province or territory where a driver
resides, but Samfiru Tumarkin LLP employment lawyer Samara Belitzky
said Uber's new agreements still have some legal clauses that may
trip up unsuspecting drivers.

Belitzky, who is part of the Samfiru Tumarkin LLP firm pursuing the
class action, said the new contract that drivers are being sent
asks them to agree not to pursue class or collective action against
Uber - a clause that was in their previous agreement too.

Uber wants drivers to agree to settle their issues through
arbitration or on an individual basis instead, but offers
instructions on how to opt-out of that clause, Belitzky said.

"The opt-out information is right at the end…and it's in a lot of
legalese, so most Uber drivers, they don't even see it," said
Belitzky.

"They don't realize that their rights are being impacted."

She recommends anyone being asked to sign the new agreement read it
carefully.

The company, which began alerting its users to the changes, is also
hosting support lines and tax resources for anyone with questions.
[GN]

ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Fighters File Class Action Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway, two long-time veterans of the
Ultimate Fighting Championship ("UFC"), filed a proposed class
action antitrust lawsuit against Zuffa, LLC (d/b/a Ultimate
Fighting Championship and UFC) and its parent company Endeavor
Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit is similar to the class action brought by Cung Le,
Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and
Kyle Kingsbury against the UFC currently pending in federal
district court in Nevada. See Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC d/b/a
Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW
(D. Nev.) ("Le"). Like the Le action, the lawsuit filed by Johnson
and Dollaway alleges that Zuffa violated antitrust laws by paying
UFC fighters far less than they were entitled to receive and
eliminating or hurting other MMA promoters. The class period
ultimately proposed by the plaintiffs in the Le action closed on
June 30, 2017. Plaintiffs Johnson and Dollaway bring this case on
behalf of those like themselves who fought in a bout promoted by
the UFC on or after July 1, 2017.

The fighters claim that Zuffa and Endeavor engaged in the following
anticompetitive practices:

locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the
fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere; using its
market dominance to coerce fighters to re-sign contracts, allegedly
making the contracts effectively perpetual and preventing fighters
from reaching free agency; and acquiring and then closing down
other MMA promoters that threatened the UFC's dominance. The
fighters contend that by locking up the vast majority of top
fighters in each weight class and buying out its biggest rivals,
Zuffa's scheme prevented potential competitors from obtaining the
critical mass of top fighters necessary to compete with the UFC,
rendering other promotions to the "minor leagues." In MMA, athletes
obtain fame by competing against ranked opponents, ascending the
rankings, and vying for titles. The fighters argue that by
acquiring all potential competitors and signing virtually all top
Fighters to long-term exclusive contracts, Zuffa left the top
Fighters and aspiring top Fighters with nowhere else to go to
compete at the top level of the sport. Due to this lack of
competition, according to the fighters, Zuffa pays UFC fighters
significantly lower share of revenues than they otherwise would if
the fighters had more options.

"Like Carlos Newton, Cung Le, Nathan Quarry and Jon Fitch before
me, I am honored to bring this lawsuit not only on behalf of myself
but all those fighters in the proposed bout class who are afraid to
speak out against the injustice we have endured. I feel obligated
to do my part to leave the sport better off for my students and all
future mixed martial artists to come," said Plaintiff Kajan
Johnson.

"We train hard and risk our bodies to succeed in this sport. Every
time we step into that Octagon, we leave a piece of ourselves
behind. The UFC should have to pay us competitive compensation for
our services, just like professional athletes in other sports get
paid based on competitive markets," said Plaintiff C.B. Dollaway.

In December 2020, Judge Richard F. Boulware, a U.S. District Court
Judge for the District of Nevada, who is overseeing the Le action,
indicated that the Court would be granting class certification to
professional mixed martial artists who competed in bouts for the
UFC. This ruling would allow the ground-breaking antitrust lawsuit
to proceed as a class action. Specifically, the proposed class in
the Le action would include:

"All persons who competed in one or more live professional
UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United
States from December 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017."

"By filing this action, we are bringing the proposed class period
forward to also cover all fighters who competed in bouts between
June 30, 2017 and the present," said Eric L. Cramer, one of the
lead counsel for the proposed class.

The case Kajan Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, et al., No.
2:21-cv-01189 (D. Nev.) was filed in federal district court in
Nevada. The law firms representing the fighters are Berger Montague
PC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Kemp Jones LLP, and Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek
PLC.

For more information about Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, and Le, et
al. v. Zuffa LLC, visit www.UFCclassaction.com or contact Eric
Cramer at ecramer@bm.net. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Filing of Class Cert Bid. Due October 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brianna Arredondo, an
individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. University of La Verne, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order setting dates as folows:

                 Event                            Date

    Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off              March 4, 2022

    Expert Disclosure (Initial)               January 3, 2022

    Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal)              February 2, 2022

    Expert Discovery Cut-Off                  April 1, 2022

    Deadline to File a Motion for Class       October 25, 2021
    Certification

    Deadline to File an Opposition to         November 15, 2021
    the Motion for Class Certification

   Deadline to File a Reply                   December 6, 2021

   Hearing Date on Motion for Class           December 20, 2021
   Certification

The University of La Verne is a private university in La Verne,
California.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36aJHZX at no extra charge.[CC]

VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Maryland Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Verus International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
class action suit filed before the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.

On April 23, 2021, a class action lawsuit was commenced against the
Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company intends to defend this matter and although the ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, based on the current
information available, the Company does not believe the ultimate
liability, if any, will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.

Verus International, Inc. engages in the supply of consumer food
products in the Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, the
United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States. The company provides frozen
foods, primarily meat, poultry, seafood, vegetables, and French
fries, as well as beverage products under its own brand primarily
to supermarkets, hotels, and other members of the wholesale trade;
and other consumer packaged foodstuff. It also offers consumer
packaged goods, such as cosmetic and fragrances; and cold-storage
facilities. The company was formerly known as RealBiz Media Group,
Inc. and changed its name to Verus International, Inc. in October
2018. Verus International, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in
Gaithersburg, Maryland.


VIRGIN GALACTIC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Galactic Holdings,
Inc. ('Virgin Galactic' or 'the Company') (NYSE:SPCE) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Virgin Galactic securities between October 26,
2019 and April 30, 2021, (the 'Class Period'). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/spce.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse information. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that: (1) Virgin Galactic improperly accounted for
outstanding warrants for Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.
('SCH'), (2) the Company should have treated the warrants as
liabilities rather than equities for accounting purposes, (3) The
Company failed to maintain appropriate controls over financial
reporting, and (4) based on this information, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/spce or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inVirgin
Galactic you have until July 27, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

WAL-MART: Kress Seeks to Certify Class of Local Merchants
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRESS STORES OF PR, INC.,
ET. AL., v. WAL-MART PUERTO RICO, INC., ET. AL., Case No.
3:20-cv-01464-WGY (D.P.R.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying a class comprised of:

   "local merchants who, contrary to Defendants, refrained from
   operating and/or selling items that were not of first necessity

   or essential in nature, as required by the Executive Order
   issued by the Honorable Wanda Vázquez-Garced and were adversely

   affected by the Defendants, who intentionally, unscrupulously
   and in direct violation of the Executive Orders sold clothes,
   shoes, appliances, electronic goods, home appliances and
   countless other miscellaneous items that were not of first
   necessity or essential in nature."

Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc is located in Caguas, Puerto Rico and is
part of the Discount Department Stores Industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x2v32r
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis N. Saldana, Esq.
          Fernando Sabater-Clavell, Esq.
          SALDANA, CARVAJAL & VELEZ-RIVE, PSC
          166 Avenida De La Constitución
          San Juan, PR 00901
          Telephone: (787) 289-9250
          Facsimile: (787) 289-9253
          E-mail: lsaldana@scvrlaw.com
                  fsabater@scvrlaw.com

WELLPET LLC: Filing of Renewed Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order
granting stipulation regarding plaintiff's amended damages report
and renewed class certification briefing as follows:

                                     Current           New
                                     Deadline        Deadline

   Plaintiff's amended damages     August 5, 2021   Sept. 2, 2021
   reports

   Plaintiff's renewed class       August 5, 2021   Sept 2, 2021
   certification motion

   Defendant's rebuttal reports    Sept. 30, 2021   Oct. 28, 2021

   Defendant's opposition to       Sept. 30, 2021   Oct. 28, 2021
   Plaintiff's amended
   damages reports and
   renewed class
   certification motion

   Plaintiff's reply in            Oct. 27, 2021    Nov. 24, 2021
   support of his renewed
   class certification motion

WellPet is a pet food company formed by the combination of Wellness
Natural Pet Food, Holistic Select Natural Pet Food, Eagle Pack
Natural Pet Food and Old Mother Hubbard Natural Dog Snacks,
purchased by Berwind Corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjsc1i at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0291
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com

WESTERN UNION: Must Reply to Radulescu Class Cert. Bid by July 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Radulescu v. Western Union
Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03009 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Christine M. Arguello entered an order that extension of time to
Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is due on or
before July 1, 2021.

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

The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial
services and communications company, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union
was the leading American company in the business of transmitting
telegrams.[CC]

WESTERN UNION: Seeks July 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBOLYA RADULESCU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY, and WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03009-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the
Court enter an order extending the deadline for them to respond to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by 21 days, to July 29,
2021.

On April 17, 2020, Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered a Scheduling
Order in this matter adopting the parties' joint proposal that
initial discovery be limited to class certification issues. On June
8, 2020, the parties jointly moved to extend all deadlines in the
Scheduling Order by 90 days due to delays in discovery as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Jackson granted the parties' motion
on June 10, 2020, and entered an order extending all deadlines by
90 days.

On September 22, 2020, this matter was reassigned from Judge
Jackson to the Court. The Court referred the case to Magistrate
Judge S. Kato Crews for non-dispositive proceedings. On October 7,
2020, Magistrate Judge Crews entered an order vacating the class
certification motion deadline pending the resolution of certain
class certification related discovery issues.

On May 18, 2021, Magistrate Judge Crews entered an order resolving
the outstanding class certification related discovery issues and
ordered Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification within
30 days. The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on
June 17, 2021, along with a new declaration from Plaintiff's class
certification expert.

The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial
services and communications company, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union
was the leading American company in the business of transmitting
telegrams.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TaJ1kd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hille R. Sheppard, Esq.
          Joseph R. Dosch, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: hsheppard@sidley.com
                  jdosch@sidley.com

               - and -

          Holly Stein Sollod, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Willis, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202-3979
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          Facsimile: (303) 295-8261
          E-mail: hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com
                  kjwillis@hollandhart.com

WOODSTREAM CORP: Filing of Reply in Support of Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY PAINTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02872-SO (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for
her to file her Reply in Support of Class Certification from June
30, 2021 to July 9, 2021.

Woodstream Corporation manufactures and markets pest control and
wildlife caring and control products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UJqEDt at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Margolis, Esq.
          BONEZZI, SWITZER, POLITO AND HUPP CO., LPA
          1300 East 9th Street, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, Ohio 44114
          Telephone: (216) 875-2068
          E-mail: RMargolis@bsphlaw.com

[*] Michigan Borrowers File Lawsuit Over HELOC Loan Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that a pair of Michigan borrowers filed a class
action lawsuit alleging their servicer failed to make certain
disclosures in a home equity line of credit transaction. The
plaintiffs alleged their servicer violated both TILA and RESPA.
[GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***