/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210702.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 2, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 126

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Holkum Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACELRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Kim Suit Over Retaliation, Civil Conspiracy
AGI CCE LLC: Nielsen Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARC ENERGY: Cobb Sues Over Race Discrimination in the Workplace

ARDEN COMPANIES: Navarette Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Johnson Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
BANK OF AMERICA: Schwartz UCL Suit Removed to N.D. California
BC FOOD: Faces Sevilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York

BOX OFFICE: Campbell FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Dancers
CALCHEF FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CANADA: Indigenous People Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
CARPENTER CO: Appeals Remand of Sanchez Suit to State Court
COCA-COLA CO: Swartz Sues Over Deceptive Bottled Water Ads

COLONIAL PIPELINE: Gas Station Files Suit Over Fuel Shortage
CONOPCO INC: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CONOPCO INC: Huskey Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
CRAB HOUSE: Wallace Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
CREE INC: Deadline Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought

CRSC LLC: Hernandez Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Bid
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
EAST SIDE PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

ECOLAB INC: Rosier Sues Over Complications From OxyCide Products
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Investor Files Securities Class Action
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Zapatero Balks at Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 17
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bloom Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

FEDERICI BRANDS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST SOLAR: Not Entitled to Shareholder Suit Coverage, Court Says
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
GEORGIA: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Benefits Delays
GLO SCIENCE: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

GRUPO TELEVISA: CAAT Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to 2nd Cir.
HERETIC BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HEXO CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
HOME POINT: Abraham Fruchter Announces Class Action Filing
HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Hourly Employees Win Conditional Class Cert.

HRB TAX: Appeals May 13 Court Ruling in Snarr Consumer Suit
HUMANA INC: Farmer Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Corwin Law Files Suit Over Unsafe Genesis SUVs
IERNA'S HEATING: Lamplugh Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuits Over Elmiron Risks

JEFFERY ROSEN: Broadfield Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
KIMBERLEY-CLARK CORPORATION: Rothfeld Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Manna Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
LASERSHIP INC: West Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
LIMETREE BAY: Shirley Environmental Suit Goes to D. Virgin Islands

LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Employee Discrimination Class Action Suit
LYNDEN, WA: Faces Class Action Over Common Area Fees
MAPCO EXPRESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vasser, Lusane Class Action
MARIANNA ZADOV: Arakelyan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MDL 2992: Smith Sues Over Management Issues re EDD Benefits

MUSICTODAY II: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MYLAN NV: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Kansas EpiPen Class Action
NCAA: Sparksman Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEUTROGEN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene in Sunscreen Products
NEUTROGENA CORPORATION: Brennan Suit Removed to N.D. California

NEW JERSEY: Fischer Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
NEW ZEALAND: Dilworth School Abuse Victims Mull Suit v. HRC
NISSAN NORTH: Court Approves Bid to Extend Briefing Deadlines
NUIX LTD: Shine Lawyers Mull Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
O'REILLY AUTO: Fails to Pay Drivers Proper Wages, Pipich Says

OCUGEN INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
ORANGE PARK: Brings Appeal in Parker FDUTPA Suit to First DCA
ORI ANUENUE: Fails to Accommodate Deaf Workers, ADA Suit Claims
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Callahan Suit
PEREZ HILTON: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PLANASA LLC: Trujillo Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. California
PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
ROBINHOOD: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Order Flow Suit
RSG CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sosa Suit Says
SKILLZ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 7 Deadline

SPANISH QUOTES: Smith Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
ST JOSEPH'S GENERAL: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling
SUBJECT WELL: Faces Turizo Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
TARENA INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Yili Qiu Sues Over Share Price Drop

TRADER JOE'S: Gierwatowski Suit Transferred to N.D. California
TRANSAMERICA CORP: Settles ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
TRANSCYND LLC: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRAXNYC CORP: Roman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TRILLIANT FOOD: Settlement Deal in Mitchell Suit Gets Initial OK

TUSHY INC: Nardo Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
UBIQUITI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
UNION INSURANCE: Deer Mountain Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
UNITED NATIONS: Ogunjobi Appeals COVID-19 Case Dismissal
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Surgeons Sue Over Denied Benefits, Coverage

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lizama MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VIVINT SOLAR: Appeals Ruling in Dekker Suit to Ninth Circuit
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Noriega FEHA Suit Goes to N.D. California
WELLNERGIZE CORP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WHAT'S NEXT MEDIA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WHIMSTAY INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
XTC CABARET: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
YERBA MATE: Certification of Wage and Hour Claims Held in Abeyance
YERBAE LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ZALE DELAWARE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ZEDAN RACING: Dropped From Horseplayers' Class Action Lawsuit
ZUFFA LLC: UFC Veterans File Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Experts Explain Class Action Hurdles in India

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA, States Settle Suit Over Imported Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark & Daniels Settles Suit


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Holkum Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEWEY HOLKUM III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01911-RMG (D.S.C., June 24, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma.

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

ACELRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACRX) between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 9, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased AcelRx 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 AcelRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2106.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 9, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA
(the Company's lead product candidate, a 30 mcg sufentanil
sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to severe acute
pain); (2) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading
claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA
in certain advertisements and displays; (3) the foregoing conduct
subjected AcelRx to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement;
and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the AcelRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2106.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.

Contacts:
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]

AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Kim Suit Over Retaliation, Civil Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEESANG KIM, MYEONG SUK CHOI, and KYUNG SIM CHE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGAPE
HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC., DONG CHUL CHOI, SUN OK LEE, TAE KWON OHM,
and JAMES VICTORY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00756 (E.D. Va.,
June 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and civil
conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants retaliated against the
Plaintiffs by filing a counterclaim which alleges fraud. The
Defendants' counterclaim did not have any factual basis and failed
to allege fraud with particularity. The Defendants' move is in
retaliation to the FLSA actions that the Plaintiffs filed against
them over unpaid overtime, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as personal care aides.

Agape Health Management Inc. is a provider of adult day care
services located in Annandale, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
         RYU & RYU, PLC
         301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
         Vienna VA 22180

AGI CCE LLC: Nielsen Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Shane Nielsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AGI CCE LLC and Blake S. Engborg,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00424 (S.D. Ohio, June 22, 2021), seeks
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio labor laws.

AGI is an installer of warehouse storage systems such as pallet
racks, pushback racks, drive-in systems, RadioShuttle pallet
racking systems and mezzanines. Nielsen worked for AGI as an
installer. Nielsen claims to be denied overtime compensation at one
and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess
of forty hours in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel. (216) 912-2221
      Fax: (216) 350-6313
      Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
             kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


ARC ENERGY: Cobb Sues Over Race Discrimination in the Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT COBB and STANLEY LEON FOSTER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARC ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-01913-JMC-SVH (D.S.C., June 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in racially
discriminatory recruitment, selection, assignment and retention
practices favoring Caucasian workers to the detriment of African
American employees. The Defendant's determination of who is
included on the list, or who will be assigned work from the list,
intentionally excludes African Americans and/or has an adverse
racial impact which excludes qualified African Americans from work
opportunities. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct,
the Plaintiffs and Class members have been denied employment
opportunities providing substantial compensation and benefits,
thereby entitling them to injunctive and equitable monetary relief;
and have suffered anguish, humiliation, distress, inconvenience and
loss of enjoyment of life because of Arc's actions, thereby
entitling them to compensatory damages.

Arc Energy Services, Inc. is a welding and machining services
provider in the power generation industry based in Rock Hill, South
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         J. Scott Falls, Esq.
         FALLS LEGAL, LLC
         245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
         Charleston, SC 29492
         Telephone: (843) 737-6040
         Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
         E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com

               - and –
         
         Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
         FALLS LEGAL, LLC
         245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
         Charleston, SC 29492
         Telephone: (843) 737-6040
         Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
         E-mail: ashley@falls-legal.com

               - and –
         
         Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
         Zev H. Antell, Esq.
         Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
         BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
         140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 648-4848
         Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
         E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
                 zev@butlercurwood.com
                 paul@butlercurwood.com

ARDEN COMPANIES: Navarette Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fernando Navarette, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Arden Companies Global
Enterprises formerly known as: Arden Companies, LLC, Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV12678, was removed from the Superior
Court California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on June 17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05045-RGK-MAR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

Arden Companies -- https://www.ardencompanies.com/ -- is America's
leading manufacturer and marketer of outdoor cushions and
pillows.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                 khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                 swong@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Scott Disbrow, Esq.
          HONIGMAN LLP
          2290 First National Building
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: (313) 465-7000
          Fax: (313) 465-7373
          Email: mdisbrow@honigman.com


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Array Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ARRY), ContextLogic, Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH), Ubiquiti, Inc.
(NYSE: UI), and Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARRY)

Class Period: October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Action alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose
that, dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain
commodities such as steel was in the process of more than doubling,
and that Array was facing increasing freight costs. As a result of
the foregoing, the Company's positive statements about its business
and operations lacked a reasonable basis.

Similarly, with respect to the Securities Act claims, the Action
alleges that the Offering Materials contained false and misleading
statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose
that, prior to the Offerings, increases in commodity and freight
costs had been negatively impacting the Company's business and
operations.

On May 11, 2021, just months after the Offerings, the truth about
these mounting costs and their negative impact on the Company's
profits was revealed. On that date, Array reported first quarter
2021 results that missed profit analysts' expectations and withdrew
its full-year 2021 outlook citing increases in steel and freight
costs. Analysts immediately cut their ratings on Array stock citing
concerns about the Company's shrinking profit margins. For example,
in a Barclays report, analysts downgraded Array stock from
"Overweight" to "Underweight" noting concerns about volumes,
margins, and earnings power.

On this news, Array's stock priced dropped $11.49 per share, or
46.1%, to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, defendants' public offering
materials failed to adequately disclose the then-existing rise of
costs related to certain supplies such as steel, as well as the
Company'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,
the Company's positive statements about its business and operations
lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Array class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ARRY

ContextLogic, Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH)

Class Period: December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021

On May 12, 2021, when ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial results
for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, it disclosed that its
MAUs had declined another 7% to just 101 million. The Company's
forward sales guidance also fell short, with its 2Q21 revenue
guidance of just $715 million to $730 million coming in
significantly less than the $759 million the market had been led to
expect and far less than the guidance of $735 to $750 million
provided for 1Q21.

On this news, the market price of ContextLogic common stock
declined $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on
May 13, 2021, on unusually high trading volume.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, defendants' registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") contained statements which were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts that existed at the time
of the IPO: (a) that ContextLogic's 4Q20 monthly active users
("MAUs") had declined materially and were not then growing; and (b)
that as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially overstated
the Company's business metrics and financial prospects.

For more information on the ContextLogic class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/WISH

Ubiquiti, Inc. (NYSE: UI)

Class Period: January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021

Ubiquiti develops and markets equipment and technology platforms
for high-capacity Internet access, unified information technology,
and consumer electronics.

On March 30, 2021, after the market closed, Krebs on Security
published an article entitled "Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach
‘Catastrophic'" stating that the Company had downplayed a data
breach from January 2021 and that the "third-party cloud provider
claim was a fabrication." According to the article, the attacker(s)
had accessed "privileged credentials that were previously stored in
the LastPass account of a Ubiquiti IT employee, and gained root
administrator access to all Ubiquiti AWS [Amazon Web Services]
accounts, including all S3 data buckets, all application logs, all
databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to
forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies." As a result, the article noted
that the Company should have immediately invalidated customers'
credentials and forced a reset, rather than asking customers to
change their passwords when they next log on."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $50.70, or 14.5%, to
close at $298.30 per share on March 31, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint 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, in
their statements concerning the data breach, failed to speak fully
and truthfully because they failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that the Company had downplayed the data breach in January 2021;
(2) that attackers had obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's
servers and obtained access to, among other things, all databases,
all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single
sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) that, as a result, intruders already had
credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers'
systems; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

For more information on the Ubiquiti class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/UI

Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ)

Class Period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021

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, thereby damaging investors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Frequency's development and commercialization of
a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322" was not producing the
results desired by Frequency; (2) FX-322's ongoing clinical study
was not as positive as Frequency portrayed it; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Frequency class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/FREQ

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Johnson Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LYNN JOHNSON filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled CITY OF TAYLOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Plaintiff v. ASTEC INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, Chattanooga.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 2, 2021, Judge
Charles E. Atchley, Jr. granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint filed in the case.

Plaintiff City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System filed
the class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased Astec
stock during the class period of July 26, 2016, to Oct. 22, 2018.
Plaintiff Lynn Johnson intervened and was appointed as the Lead
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Astec Industries, Benjamin
Brock, David Silvious, and Malcom Swanson made false or otherwise
misleading statements that artificially inflated the price of
Astec's stock. In doing so, the Plaintiffs argue that (1) all the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 respectively, and (2) the individual
Defendants, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t.  

Ms. Johnson now seeks a review of the dismissal order entered by
Judge Atchley. She also filed this appeal to review the Court's
Oder dated May 5, 2021 where her motion to alter judgment was
denied.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Taylor, TN, et al. v.
Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-5602, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 21,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LYNN JOHNSON is represented by:

          Daniel I. Tyre-Karp, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          E-mail: dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., BENJAMIN G. BROCK,
DAVID C. SILVIOUS, and MALCOLM SWANSON are represented by:

          John A. Jordak, Jr., Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: john.jordak@alston.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Schwartz UCL Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARI SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 21CV01285, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Cruz to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-04865-VKD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Unfair Competition Law by adding additional months of mortgage
payments to the Plaintiff's total loan amounts, resulting in
increased loan balances.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking firm located in Charlotte, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Douglas A. Thompson, Esq.
         Linda C. Hsu, Esq.
         Traci G. Choi, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         120 Broadway, Suite 300
         Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
         Telephone: (310) 576-2100
         Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
         E-mail: douglas.thompson@bclplaw.com
                 linda.hsu@bclplaw.com
                 traci.choi@bclplaw.com

                - and –

         C. Angelia Duncan, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         One Wells Fargo Center
         301 S. College Street, Suite 3900
         Charlotte, NC 28202-0902
         Telephone: (704) 749-8999
         Facsimile: (704) 749-8990
         E-mail: angelia.duncan@bclplaw.com

BC FOOD: Faces Sevilla Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIO SEVILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BC FOOD & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a PIONEER
SUPERMARKET and BRUNO A. CORONA as individuals, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03406 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers accurate
minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to pay spread-of-hours
premiums, failure to furnish a written wage notice upon hiring, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2006 until
February 2021 whose primary duties were as a produce stocker
performing other miscellaneous duties.

BC Food & Produce Corp. d/b/a provides retail food services in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

BOX OFFICE: Campbell FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENSY CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOX OFFICE PROPERTIES, LLC dba THE BOXXX
OFFICE; RICHARD ALLEN BICKLE, JR.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00414 (W.D. Wis., June 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum
wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip
sharing.

The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at The Boxxx Office
located at W11208 State Road 33, Portage, Wisconsin from at least
2019 to 2020.

The Box Office Properties, LLC is an operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name The Boxxx Office located at
W11208 State Road 33, Portage, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LLP
         12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (310) 507-7924
         Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

                - and –

         Jay Urban, Esq.
         URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
         Urban Taylor Law Building
         4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
         Milwaukee, WI 53212
         Telephone: (414) 906-1700
         E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com

CALCHEF FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CalChef Foods, LLC.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. CalChef
Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03637 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

CalChef Foods, LLC -- http://www.chefsmenu.com/-- is a food &
beverages company based out in Modesto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CANADA: Indigenous People Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for Canadian Press, 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 June 23.

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.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 23,
2021. [GN]

CARPENTER CO: Appeals Remand of Sanchez Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Carpenter Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled BLANCA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
CARPENTER CO. d/b/a E.R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02550-JLS-SP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 17, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on December 10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02550 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal periods, unpaid rest
periods, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay final wages,
failure to furnish compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

The action was subsequently remanded to the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's June 8, 2021 Order,
granting Plaintiff's motion to remand.

The appellate case is captioned as Blanca Sanchez v. Carpenter Co.,
Case No. 21-80069, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on June 21, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner CARPENTER CO., a Virginia corporation, DBA
E.R. Carpenter Company, Inc., is represented by:

          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-9225
          E-mail: abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street, Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775-4716
          E-mail: mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          John S. Moran, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          888 16th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 525-0356
          E-mail: jmoran@mcguirewoods.com

Plaintiff-Respondent BLANCA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com  

               - and -

          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          E-mail: statavos@justicelawcorp.com

COCA-COLA CO: Swartz Sues Over Deceptive Bottled Water Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SWARTZ, CRISTINA SALGADO, and, MARCELO MUTO on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
COCA-COLA COMPANY, BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., and NIAGARA BOTTLING,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04643-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 16,
2021) seeks to remedy the Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive business practices with respect to the advertising,
marketing, and sale of water bottled in single-use plastic bottles
labeled as "100% Recyclable."

The complaint seeks (i) an injunction precluding the sale of the
plastic bottled water within a reasonable time after entry of
judgment, unless the products' packaging and marketing are modified
to remove the "100% Recyclable" misrepresentation and to disclose
the omitted facts about their true recyclability; and (ii) to
require Defendants to pay restitution to purchasers of the
products, namely the price premium they paid for them, i.e., the
difference between the price consumers paid for the products and
the price that they would have paid but for Defendants'
misrepresentations, in an amount to be proven at trial using
econometric or statistical techniques such as hedonic regression or
conjoint analysis.

Coca-Cola Co. and Niagara Bottling, LLC manufacture, market, and
sell beverages, including bottled water, in the United States under
several brand names.

BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is the successor entity to Nestle Waters
North America, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.  
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: marie@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com

COLONIAL PIPELINE: Gas Station Files Suit Over Fuel Shortage
------------------------------------------------------------
WECT reports that a Wilmington-based gas station has filed a class
action lawsuit against Colonial Pipeline after the fuel shortage
following a cyber attack on the pipeline in May.

WECT reports that attorneys said more than 11,000 gas stations were
impacted, but many of the mom-and-pop style stations were hit
hardest.

The goal of this lawsuit is to get "reimbursement for gas station
owners losses," said Joel Rhine, Attorney at Rhine Law Associates.

Attorneys told WECT they anticipate that Colonial Pipeline will
file a motion to dismiss the complaint. [GN]


CONOPCO INC: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peter Fischer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc. doing business as:
Unilever, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 21SL-CC01070, was removed
from the St. Louis County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00782 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever --
https://www.unilever.com/ -- provides personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 550-3717
          Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Muehlberger, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City
          2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Fax: (816) 421-5547
          Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com


CONOPCO INC: Huskey Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Drew Huskey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc. doing business as:
Unilever, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 21SL-CC01072, was removed
from the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 29,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00781-MTS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever --
https://www.unilever.com/ -- provides personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 550-3717
          Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Muehlberger, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City
          2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Fax: (816) 421-5547
          Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com


CRAB HOUSE: Wallace Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIQUAN WALLACE, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. CRAB HOUSE INC. d/b/a Crab House; SAN-YIU
CHENG a/k/a San Yiu Cheng a/k/a Sanyiu Cheng CALVIN CHENG SAN-CHONG
CHENG a/k/a San Chong Cheng a/k/a Sanchong Cheng, and EN ZHENG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05381 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2021) is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from their
various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and practices.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the federal and
state laws by failing to pay him and the Class members proper
minimum and overtime wages, failing to compensate spread-of-hours
pay, failing to provide meal periods, failing to keep weekly
payroll records, failing to furnish wage notice, and failing to
provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a server
from June 2, 2019 to December 21, 2019.

Crab House Inc. operates "Crab House" in New York City. Corporate
Non-Defendant operates "Lobster House Seafood Buffet Restaurant" in
Rego Park, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC  
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

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

   -- The Plaintiff, therefore, requests that the deadlines for
class
      certification briefing in this matter be extended by 7 days;


   -- Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of class
      certification and responses to Daubert challenges relevant to

      class certification, and to serve rebuttal expert disclosures

      would be extended to July 8, 2021 (current deadline is July
      1, 2021);

   -- Defendant's responses and replies to Plaintiff's filing would

      be due September 8, 2021(current deadline is September 1,
      2021); and

   -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file replies in support of
      motions to strike Defendant's experts related to class
      certification would be extended to October 8, 2021 (current
      deadline is October 1, 2021). This extension would not impact

      other dates in the Court's scheduling order, which follow the

      Court's decision regarding class certification.

The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification along with
two expert reports on February 26, 2021. The Defendant filed its
opposition to class certification along with four expert reports,
on April 30, 2021. On the same day, the Defendant filed two motions
to strike Plaintiff's experts.

On May 11, 2021, the Plaintiff requested that her deadlines for
class certification briefing be extended to make her reply in
support of class certification, responses to Daubert challenges
relevant to class certification and rebuttal expert disclosures all
due on July 1, 2021.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hp6xC7 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

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

CRSC LLC: Hernandez Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE HERNANDEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CRSC, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00632-JTM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order to extend the deadline to file his
Motion for Class Certification until set by the Court.

On March 30, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his collective action and
class action complaint, asserting claims against Defendant.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b), a plaintiff is required to move for
class certification within 90 days after the filing of a complaint,
unless the period is extended by the court for good cause.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Rule 23 class is
due on or before June 29, 2021.

The Defendants were served on May 17, 2021. The Defendants filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer on June 17, 2021. On
June 18, 2021, the Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File
Answer was granted, with an Answer due July 9, 2021.

CRSC is located in Covington, Louisiana. This organization
primarily operates in the Single-family Housing Construction
business.

A copy the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wj5g5b at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          William R. Liles, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith reminds investors of important approaching
deadlines regarding class action lawsuits against the following
companies for violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced time
periods 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.

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.

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]

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that securities fraud class action lawsuits have been
filed against Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) ("Danimer")
f/k/a Live Oak Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: LOAK) ("Live Oak") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Danimer securities
between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Danimer securities during the Class Period may, no later than July
13, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/danimer-scientific-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=danimer

The Class Period commences on October 5, 2020, when Meredian
Holdings Group, Inc. ("Meredian"), doing business as Danimer
Scientific, a performance polymer company specializing in
bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based
plastics, announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement
for a business combination with Live Oak (the "Business
Combination"). On December 30, 2020, Danimer issued a post-market
press release announcing the completion of the Business
Combination. That press release represented that "[Danimer's]
signature polymer, Nodax™ PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate), is a 100%
biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic" that "is the
first PHA polymer to be certified as marine degradable, the highest
standard of biodegradability, which verifies the material will
fully degrade in ocean water without leaving behind harmful
microplastics."

Local Trending News

Then, on March 20, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an
article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the
Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things,
Danimer's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly than
fossil-fuel plastics. Specifically, the article reported that "many
claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading, according to
several experts on biodegradable plastics," and that, despite
breaking down more quickly than traditional fossil-fuel plastics,
"[b]iodegradable straws, bottles and bags can persist in the ocean
for several years."

On April 22, 2021, research firm Spruce Point Capital Management
("Spruce Point") issued a report demonstrating that Danimer's
annual report disclosures regarding the purchase price of the
Kentucky Facility were inconsistent with city records. Then, on May
4, 2021, Spruce Point issued a follow-up report which revealed that
Danimer's production figures, average selling price, and financial
projections had been "wildly overstated." Following this news,
Danimer's stock price fell $4.48, or 20%, over three consecutive
trading sessions to close at $17.66 per share on May 6, 2021.

The complaint alleges that 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.

Danimer investors may, no later than July 13, 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]


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Turizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. CACE-21-012011 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 17, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, to promote its franchisees, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, including to
individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen and permanent
resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is the franchisor of the Subway brand for the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


EAST SIDE PIZZA: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO ROJAS MARTINEZ, ASUNCION ALBINO CASTILLO, BRAULIO MORENO
FLORES, ANTONIO QUIRINO RUIZ, and OBED DOMINGUEZ GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. EAST SIDE PIZZA CORP. (D/B/A LA MIA PIZZA), PERFECTO PIZZERIA
CORPORATION (D/B/A LUNETTA PIZZA), MIDTOWN PIZZA CORP. (D/B/A LA
VERA PIZZA), 52 ST PIZZA CORP. (D/B/A LITTLE ROMA), RICHARD (A.K.A
RICHIE) ATTIA, HESHAM M. ATTIA, ABDELLATIF MAHMOUD, and KHAIR
MUHANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05335-RA (S.D.N.Y., June 17,
2021) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the state and
federal laws by failing to compensate them and Class members the
required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to pay spread-of-hours
premium for all hours worked in excess of 10 hours, failing to
furnish a wage notice upon hiring, failing to provide accurate wage
statements, failing to reimburse the costs and expenses for
purchasing and maintaining equipment, failing to pay all wages
within a timely manner, and engaging in unlawful deductions from
wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, cooks, as a food
preparer, a counter man and as pizza makers at the Defendants'
restaurants in New York.

The Defendants own, operate, or control multiple pizzeria
restaurants in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ECOLAB INC: Rosier Sues Over Complications From OxyCide Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROSIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECOLAB INC. and DOES 1-100 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01482 (D. Minn., June 24, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for strict liability,
negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and
fraudulent concealment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged use of dangerous
chemicals and compounds in the OxyCide Daily Disinfectant Cleaner
and OxyCide Dilution Management System. Testing of chemical
compounds in OxyCide Cleaning Products revealed the presence of
peracetic acid also known as peroxyacetic acid, a known asthmagen
and respiratory sensitizer. Despite advance notices of
complications arising from OxyCide Cleaning Products nationwide,
Ecolab refused to take affirmative action to analyze, test, study,
and/or recall the products. As a result of the Plaintiff's alleged
exposure to the OxyCide toxic chemicals, he experienced excessive
coughing, burning eyes, skin rashes, difficulty breathing,
respiratory problems, and asthma-like symptoms.

Ecolab, Inc. is an American corporation that develops and offers
services, technology and systems that specialize in water
treatment, purification, cleaning and hygiene in a wide variety of
applications, with its headquarters located in Saint Paul,
Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
         RYU & RYU, PLC
         301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
         Vienna VA 22180

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Investor Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lash, writing for The Daily Record, reports that Emergent
BioSolutions Inc.'s ruination of 15 million doses of COVID-19
vaccine at its Baltimore plant was not as unexpected as the
Gaithersburg-based company would have the public believe, an
investor has alleged in a potential class-action lawsuit accusing
the business of having committed securities fraud. [GN]

ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Zapatero Balks at Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ZAPATERO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE COMPANY, EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE, LLC, PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22232 (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2021)
arises from the failure of the Defendants to disclose the presence
of benzene, a known human carcinogen, in their Banana Boat
sunscreen products in violation of the Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff and the putative class have allegedly suffered
economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and they seek
injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of
the sunscreen product(s) they purchased.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and/or sell a variety of Banana Boat sunscreen spray/aerosol
products and lotions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Jason Richards, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
          E-mail: jrichards@awkolaw.com

FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida
entity, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02522-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder entered an order granting the joint stipulation for
additional extension of time to file class certification motions by
48 days to Friday, September 17, 2021.

Farmers Insurance is one of the insurers comprising Farmers
Insurance Group. Farmers Insurance along with Fire Insurance
Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange, and their subsidiaries and
affiliates, provide automobile, homeowners, personal umbrella and
business owners insurance.

The Defendants include FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC.; FARMERS
NEW CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY; ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY;
21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY; FOREMOST PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY;
21ST CENTURY NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; 21ST CENTURY PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE; AND FOREMOST SIGNATURE INSURANCE
COMPANY.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xa6UHv at no extra charge.[CC]

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bloom Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KYLE DEAN BLOOM, JOSE LOPEZ, TIMOTHY CAMEY
BERNARDIN, ALBERT GARCIA, DECHELLE WEBB, MANUEL E. HERNANDEZ,
BRYANT HARRIS, ANITA JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ELIZABETH WALKER, EDDIE
JACKSON, KENNETH A. GEISS, TRISTAN JONES, RYAN ALEXANDER OJEIL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL
EXPRESS CORPORATION and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. HG21096557,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04855 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to pay
all wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to pay overtime earned, failure to maintain
records of hours worked/wages earned, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon termination,
failure to reimburse expenses, and unfair competition and unlawful
business practices.

Federal Express Corporation is an American multinational delivery
services company, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Erica H. Gruver, Esq.
         Thomas J. Moran, Esq.
         FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
         2601 Main Street, Suite 340
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 862-4585
         Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
         E-mail: erica.gruver@fedex.com
                 thomas.moran@fedex.com

FEDERICI BRANDS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federici Brands LLC.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Federici
Brands LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03643 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

Federici Brands (Federici Brands LLC, US and Federici Brands LTD,
UK) -- https://www.federicibrands.com/ -- are privately-held
companies known for disruptive innovation in the beauty
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FIRST SOLAR: Not Entitled to Shareholder Suit Coverage, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that First Solar Inc., a major solar panel
manufacturer, isn't entitled to coverage of a shareholder suit
accusing the company of concealing production process defects, a
Delaware state court fund on June 23, saying the suit's similarity
to a related class action precluded coverage under the
manufacturer's policies. [GN]

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, and docketed under 21-cv-11040, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency's common stock
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This action brings claims against
Defendants Frequency and the Company's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), David L. Lucchino ("Lucchino"), and seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Frequency securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 2, 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.

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

The complaint alleges that, shortly after launching the Phase 2a
trial, Frequency and CEO Lucchino learned that the Phase 2a trial
results revealed no discernible difference between FX-22 and the
placebo. The complaint also alleges that while Frequency's stock
price remained artificially inflated, defendant Lucchino sold over
350,00 Frequency shares, receiving over $10.5 million in proceeds
from the sale.

Frequency has conducted multiple clinical trials assessing the
safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant of which was a
Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019. Each participant in
the Phase 2a trial was given a four-dose regimen of FX-322 (or a
placebo), which consisted of a single injection of the drug (or
placebo) four weeks in a row. Frequency then assessed the results
90 days after completion of the regimen and again in the months
after.

Shortly thereafter, Defendants learned that the Company's Phase 2a
trial results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as
the results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and
the placebo.

Despite the disappointing results, the Company continued to conduct
the Phase 2a study while releasing positive statements in earnings
calls, press releases, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
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.

Seizing on the Company's artificially high share price, in April
2020 Defendant Lucchino began selling his shares of Frequency,
initially dumping between 10,000 and 20,000 shares -- earning
hundreds of thousands of dollars -- each month and then increasing
the number of sales to 60,000 to 80,000 shares -- earning millions
of dollars -- each month as Frequency's deadline for releasing the
disastrous Phase 2a results drew near. All told, Lucchino sold over
350,000 shares and earned over $10.5 million.

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

These results dramatically undercut the narrative that the Company
had spun since Frequency's IPO and investors reacted accordingly.
That day, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78% drop,
representing a decline in the Company's market capitalization of
approximately $955 million.

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]

GEORGIA: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Benefits Delays
-----------------------------------------------------
The Center Square reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC) and an Atlanta-based law firm have sued the Georgia
Department of Labor over unemployment benefits delays.

They claim the state agency did not follow federal law and process
jobless claims in a timely manner. The lawsuit is asking the court
to enforce Georgians' due process rights and to award monetary
damages.

"State and federal law guarantee certain promptness and due process
rights to plaintiffs, and all other members of the classes that
plaintiffs seek to represent," the attorneys said in the lawsuit.
"Repeatedly and systematically, the GDOL has violated those rights
-- failing to make prompt determinations regarding unemployment
benefits, failing to provide prompt appeal hearings of those
determinations, and failing to make payments that are undeniably
due."

SPLC and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore attorneys said unemployed
Georgians have been waiting months for their claims to be processed
and experiencing delays in receiving payments or getting their
appeals heard. They argue Congress allocated $67 million to Georgia
to assist GDOL with three temporary unemployment insurance
benefits, but delays persist.

Attorneys said Clarke County resident Von King has been waiting
almost a year to have her appeal heard. All of the other dozen
plaintiffs and class members have experienced months of waiting.

DeKalb County Plaintiff Danielle Johnson filed for unemployment
after being diagnosed with COVID-19 in March. She was pregnant at
the time and had to leave her job. The attorneys said Johnson has
been verifying payments every week, but GDOL has not confirmed her
eligibility yet.

Two other unemployed workers are named in the lawsuit, along with
nine anonymous class members. GDOL officials said they are
reviewing the cases included in the lawsuit.

GDOL Commissioner Mark Butler said the lawsuit, and others like it,
is politically motivated. Six unemployed Georgians also sued the
department in January over the delays. The state, GDOL and Butler
are named in the class-action lawsuit filed on June 22.

"Just like previous lawsuits, we expect to prove that this suit
does not have merit," Butler said. "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."

As of June 23, more than 220,000 jobs are listed on the state's job
search website, EmployGeorgia. GDOL Spokesperson Kersha Cartwright
said there are about 54,000 appealed claims waiting on hearings.
The agency must review and investigate those claims before a
hearing can be scheduled. About 60,000 claims are pending
eligibility because of a reason other than a lack of work. GDOL
must contact the employer and before resolving the claim.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Georgia is "severely
underperforming" according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics
when it comes to unemployment benefit administration. While most
states issued the first benefit payment within 14 days to 21 days,
Georgia issued just 54% of initial unemployment payments within
that time frame.

"A brief scan of the GDOL's own social media pages reveals
innumerable posts highlighting the extent of the GDOL's failures,
inaccessibility, and severe delays in determining eligibility,
paying benefits, and scheduling appeal hearings," Emily Early,
senior supervising staff attorney for the SPLC's Economic Justice
Project, said. "This catastrophe cannot continue." [GN]

GLO SCIENCE: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glo Science, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Glo
Science, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03641 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

GLO Science -- https://gloscience.com/ -- is a New York City based
dental company dedicated to building healthy smiles through
innovative technological advances in oral care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GRUPO TELEVISA: CAAT Petitions for Writ of Mandamus to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Colleges of Applied Arts and Techonology Pension Plan
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled
In re GRUPO TELEVISA SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-1979, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pension Plan (CAAT) held a
long position of Televisa ADR's on which it claims losses of
$968,000 during the class period. The other class members, at the
same market prices, would have suffered losses of a similar nature,
in smaller amounts.

The Plaintiff moved to expedite briefing and decision on their
petition for a writ of mandamus. Alternatively, they move to stay
proceedings in the district court pending a disposition of the
petition. The Court granted the motion to stay district court
proceedings pending Court decision on the petition.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Colleges of Applied Arts
and Techonology Pension Plan, Case No. 21-1499, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 18,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that any
response from Respondents is due by July 7, 2021 and any reply is
due by July 14, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union
Local 1577 Pension Plan, Individually and on behalf of the
certified class, is represented by:

          Thomas C. Goldstein, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Avenue
          Bethesda, MD 20814

Defendants-Respondents Salvi Rafael Folch Viadero; Emilio Fernando
Azcarraga Jean; Grupo Televisa, S.A.B.; Melvin Gross, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Randolph E. Wise
Revocable Living Trust; and Arrowstreet Capital LP are represented
by:

          Herbert M. Wachtell, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1216

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

               - and -

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060

               - and -

          Alexander B. Simkin, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 506-1746

HERETIC BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heretic Beauty Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Heretic
Beauty Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03639 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

Heretic Beauty doing business as Heretic Parfum --
https://hereticparfum.com/ -- offers handcrafted fragrance made
from 100% naturally derived botanical ingredients blended in
organic sugarcane alcohol.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HEXO CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
HEXO Corp ("HEXO", or the "Company") (TSX: HEXO; NYSE: HEXO)
announced on June 23 that it has won a dismissal of the securities
class action pending in the Commercial Division of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County. As previously
disclosed, HEXO and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named in shareholder class action lawsuits filed in
the Southern District of New York; the Commercial Division of the
Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County; and the
Province of Quebec. The suits alleged that HEXO made material
misstatements and omitted material information in its prior
disclosures to investors regarding various issues, including but
not limited to its estimated sales revenues during Q4 2019 and
fiscal year 2020, its supply agreement with the SQDC, and the
facilities acquired from Newstrike.

The Southern District of New York previously dismissed the U.S.
federal securities class action in that venue on March 8, 2021. No
appeal was taken from that dismissal.

Following oral argument on June 3, 2021, Justice Andrew Borrok of
the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County granted HEXO's motion to dismiss the state
court securities class action. The court agreed with HEXO that the
plaintiffs "fail[ed] to identify any facts which were known or
should be known which rendered the offering documents materially
misleading at the time they were issued." Plaintiffs have a right
to appeal.

"We are pleased that a second U.S. court has now determined that
the U.S. securities class action claims against HEXO are without
merit," said HEXO General Counsel Roch Vaillancourt. "While the
Quebec litigation remains pending, the ruling should further help
reduce our litigation burden as we continue closing and integrating
our recent acquisitions, to pursue our goal of becoming a top-three
global cannabis products company."

                            About HEXO

HEXO is an award-winning licensed producer of innovative products
for the global cannabis market. HEXO serves the Canadian
recreational market with a brand portfolio including HEXO, UP
Cannabis, Original Stash, Bake Sale, Namaste, and REUP brands, and
the medical market in Canada, Israel and Malta. The Company also
serves the Colorado market through its Powered by HEXO(R) strategy
and Truss CBD USA, a joint-venture with Molson Coors. In the event
that the previously announced transactions to acquire 48North and
Redecan close, HEXO expects to be the number one cannabis products
company in Canada by recreational market share.
For more information, please visit www.hexocorp.com. [GN]

HOME POINT: Abraham Fruchter Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP on June 24 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home Point Capital" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:HMPT) common stock in connection with the Company's January
29, 2021, initial public offering ("IPO") of 7,250,000 shares of
Home Point Capital's common stock for $13.00 per share or total
proceeds of $88,123,750 received by the selling stockholders.

The complaint alleges that Home Point Capital's offering documents
violated the Securities Act of 1933 by failing to disclose that the
Company's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would
dramatically increase Home Point Capital's expenses; at the same
time that the mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide
decreased gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates
in 2021. On May 6, 2021, Home Point Capital reported revenue of
$324.2 million for the fiscal quarter, missing consensus estimates
by $41.72 million and causing Home Point Capital's stock price to
fall nearly 18%.

If you would like to discuss this class action lawsuit or obtain
more information about your rights, please contact Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky LLP by e-mailing Jack G. Fruchter
(JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
(SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com). You may also call (212) 279-5050.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP is a law firm based in New York and
maintaining an office in California. The firm's attorneys have
extensive experience litigating on behalf of shareholders and
consumers in class action litigations involving corporate
misconduct and has been ranked as a leading plaintiffs' securities
litigation firm in the 2020 survey by ISS Securities Class Action
Services. Please visit www.aftlaw.com for more information. [GN]


HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Hourly Employees Win Conditional Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN MYRES, et al, v.
HOPEBRIDGE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05390-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs on behalf
of:

   "All current and former hourly employees of Hopebridge who (a)
   worked as a Registered Behavior Technician; and (b) whose
   payroll records reflect that they worked forty or more hours in

   any workweek beginning three years preceding the instant Motion

   and continuing to the present"

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant Hopebridge
alleging that the Defendant failed to pay hourly, non-exempt
employees overtime wages for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) as well as Ohio law.

The Defendant provides healthcare services, including personalized
therapy for children and their families affected by behavioral,
physical, social, communication, and sensory challenges, as well as
outpatient services at its autism therapy centers.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 29, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qCNCIl at no
extra charge.[CC]

HRB TAX: Appeals May 13 Court Ruling in Snarr Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Pelanatita Olosoni, et
al. v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive
business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File
Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False
Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17500, et seq., and California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. The plaintiffs
seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

This putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block,
Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No.
CGC-19576093) styled Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
before it was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 21, 2019.

The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019,
dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In their amended complaint,
the Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between
May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block(TM)'s internet-based filing
system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free
through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program,
and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of
the payments.

The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
May 13, 2021, denying their renewed motion to compel and granting
Plaintiff's cross-motion for corrective action.

The appellate case is captioned as Derek Snarr v. HRB Tax Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-16001, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 11, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on June 18, 2021;

   -- Appellants HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc. opening
brief is due on August 10, 2021;

   -- Appellee Derek Snarr answering brief is due on September 9,
2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants HRB TAX GROUP, INC. and HRB DIGITAL LLC are
represented by:

          Darren K. Cottriel, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: dcottriel@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com  

Plaintiff-Appellee DEREK SNARR, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stephen Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          113 Cherry Street #55150
          Seattle, WA 98140
          Telephone: (917) 817-2665  
          E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com  

               - and -

          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 336-6545
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com

HUMANA INC: Farmer Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven K. Farmer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Humana Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Cotiviti, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Case No. 2021-CA-002175 NC,
was removed from Sarasota County to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on June 17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01478-MSS-SPF to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American
health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center Ste 700
          201 N Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 223-5402
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

                 - and -

          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          RYAN MAXEY LAW, P.A.
          107 N. 11th Street #402
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 209-9818
          Email: rmaxey@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly J. Donovan, Esq.
          Jason Daniel Joffe, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 4700
          Miami, FL 33131-2303
          Phone: (305) 577-7032
          Fax: (305) 577-7001
          Email: kimberly.donovan@squirepb.com
                 jason.joffe@squirepb.com

                 - and -

          Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 649-4000
          Fax: (407) 841-0168
          Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Corwin Law Files Suit Over Unsafe Genesis SUVs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jol McIntosh, writing for Driving, reports that a Florida law firm
specializing in consumer advocacy has filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against Hyundai, claiming that the Genesis GV80
sport-utility is unsafe.

Corwin Law, based in Boca Raton, filed the lawsuit on behalf of
owners and lessees of the GV80, which launched as an all-new model
for 2021. The lawsuit claims the automaker is "promoting the GV80
luxury SUV, despite being aware of dangerous defects affecting the
vehicle's driveability that are documented in Korean news media and
current customer message boards."

The suit is represented by Dr. Barbara Feinstein, who took her
vehicle on a 36-month lease at US$920 per month from a dealership
in Maryland. Two days after she got it, she and her husband drove
it to their home in Florida, a trip of approximately 1,770 km.

According to the lawsuit, after a few hours while driving at
"moderate speeds," the vehicle "began to dangerously shake,
shudder, vibrate and pull to the left, causing a continuous
struggle to keep the SUV from veering off the road." Feinstein took
it to a dealership in Delray Beach, Florida, where she was
allegedly told "there was something seriously wrong with the SUV."

Feinstein flew back to Maryland, and after the Florida dealer
replaced an axle, Hyundai transported the vehicle back to Maryland.
After she picked it up, Feinstein said the problem came back. Her
dealer then replaced the driveshaft and performed an alignment, but
according to the lawsuit, the GV80 continued to pull to the left,
along with a "low but constant vibration in the steering wheel and
head rest, along with shuddering while driving."

According to the lawsuit, Feinstein was without her car for 45 out
of 95 days. The law firm alleges that Hyundai knew its GV80
vehicles "shake, shudder and vibrate," and in June 2020 it stopped
distribution of its diesel-powered GV80s in global markets due to
engine vibration, but "has never fixed the instability problems."

Corwin Law said the class-action suit alleges violation of state
consumer protection laws; breach of express warranty; breach of
implied warranty; and unjust enrichment.

The firm also noted Tiger Woods was driving a GV80 in February 2021
in California when he veered off the road and crashed, although
police have since determined the golfer was driving at
approximately 130 km/h in a 72 km/h zone and failed to follow a
curve in the road.

The U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) awarded the
2021 GV80 with its highest Top Safety Pick Plus designation, for
meeting crash-test standards. [GN]

IERNA'S HEATING: Lamplugh Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lamplugh, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Ierna's Heating & Cooling, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01504 (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2021), seeks
liquidated damages in an amount equal to an overtime award,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
expenses of the litigation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Lamplugh worked for Ierna's Heating & Cooling as an installer since
August 2020. He claims to be uncompensated for the drive time to
return the company truck to company headquarters. He would
routinely work through his lunch and not get paid for the time
worked. Lamplugh regularly and routinely worked over 40 hours in a
work week but was not paid time and a one-half his regular hourly
rate for each and every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours
in a work week for all weeks that he worked, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
      Hunter A. Higdon, Esq.
      FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
      16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
      Lutz, FL 33558
      Telephone (727) 254-5255
      Facsimile (727) 483-7942
      Email: cgray@fgbolaw.com
             hhigdon@fgbolaw.com


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuits Over Elmiron Risks
----------------------------------------------------------
Roy D. Oppenheim, Esq., of Oppenheim Law, reports that Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of American giant Johnson & Johnson,
is the main manufacturer of pentosyn polysulfate sodium (PPS),
commonly known as Elmiron. Elmiron is generally used to treat a
type of interstitial cystitis or painful bladder symptoms. Janssen
is currently being sued over allegations, amongst others, that
Janssen failed to warn patients about the risks in taking Elmiron.
The lawsuits surged after Elmiron users reported significant vision
impairment after years of taking the medication.

Designated as an "orphan drug" under Title 21 of the United States
Code, Elmiron was made available to people who suffer from bladder
pain and interstitial cystitis while further studies and testing of
Elmiron were being done. Janssen was still required to provide drug
interaction and warnings as part of the packaging materials and
educational materials provided to the prescribing physicians. At
issue is that Elmiron as distributed by Janssen is a defective and
dangerous product, and that Janssen failed to provide appropriate
and adequate warnings and instructions to render the medication
reasonably safe for its use.

An Unforeseen Threat
Although the causal relationship between vision impairment and
bladder medication might seem unlikely, the allegations raised from
the Elmiron suit are supported up by a set of studies conducted by
various medical and academic experts. One study in particular, in
2018, involved physicians at the Emory Eye Center at Emory
University, who found that chronic exposure to PPS, or Elmiron,
caused "a novel and possibly avoidable maculopathy", suggesting
Elmiron caused vision impairment. A year later, the Emory Eye
Center published a study where they noted that those patients who
suffered from interstitial cystitis but did not take PPS did not
suffer from pigmented maculopathy, corroborating that PPS is so far
the only known cause of the specific type of maculopathy,
pigmentary maculopathy, experienced by Elmiron users. This same
study ended by encouraging affected patients to stop taking PPS.

What is Maculopathy?
Maculopathy, also known as macular degeneration, is the progressive
loss of central vision. Although maculopathy never leads to
complete blindness since lateral vision is preserved, the damage
done to a person's central vision is so severe that many of those
who suffer from maculopathy struggle to perform everyday tasks.
Pigmented maculopathy, what many Elmiron users suffer, is
characterized by the symptoms from regular maculopathy in addition
to having trouble adjusting to low-level lighting and reading.

Subsequent studies showed that a disproportionate amount of chronic
PPS users suffered from maculopathy, especially when compared to
other medications involved in other mass torts. In October of 2019,
a study by health care company Kaiser Permanente found that 22 out
of 91 patients who used a significant amount of PPS for 15 years
had clear retinal damage. In January of 2020, a different study
found that 27 out of 117 PPS users had definite signs of
maculopathy. So far, three independent studies have found PPS to
cause maculopathy at a rate that could be almost as high as 1 in 4
users. As a result, Janssen is facing evidence that suggests a
potentially avoidable maculopathy associated with chronic exposure
to PPS.

Poor Optics
Individual lawsuits are now being filed accusing Janssen of failing
to warn users of the risk of developing vision problems when taking
Elmiron. In fact, Janssen opted to wait until June 2020 to put a
warning on its label. The warning provides potential adverse
reactions for extended use of Elmiron including "pigmentary changes
in the retina… have been identified with the long-term use." As
of May 2021, there have been no recalls issued for Elmiron.

We See Your Pain, Let Us Serve You
Since Elmiron's lawsuit is in its early stages, now is the time to
act. You may be entitled to compensation if you have used Elmiron
for an extended period of time and if you have either been
diagnosed with pigmentary maculopathy or suffer from one of the
following symptoms:

• Difficulty reading
• Blurred vision
• Difficulty adjusting to darkness
• Dark spots in the center of your field of vision
• Blurry spots in the center of your field of vision
• A reduced ability to perform routine tasks as a result of
impaired vision

Our team at Oppenheim Law recognizes the emotional and economic
burden these impairments can have on individuals and their lives.
That is why our firm provides a team of professionals committed to
zealously represent our clients.

Please feel free to call us at (954) 384-6114 or contact us at
contactus@oppenheimlaw.com or chat with us at www.oppenheimlaw.com
so we can inform you of your legal rights so you can obtain the
compensation to which you are entitled. [GN]


JEFFERY ROSEN: Broadfield Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Broadfield v.
Jeffery Rosen, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00103-TAD-KK (W.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge TERRY A. DOUGHTY entered an order that:

   -- the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Brian Dwayne
      Broadfield is denied and dismissed without prejudice, to the

      right of the Petitioner to raise this issue again in the
      event this rule is modified, and he suffers injury as a
      result; and

   -- the pending motion to certify class, motion to appoint
      counsel, motion for preliminary injunction, and motion for
      temporary restraining order are denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ToCP8j at no extra charge.[CC]

KIMBERLEY-CLARK CORPORATION: Rothfeld Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAWN ROTHFELD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KIMBERLEY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-05647, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-01484-N to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New
York General Business Law by failing to detect and/or remediate
bacterial contamination in Cottonelle Flushable Wipes and
Cottonelle GentlePlus Flushable Wipes and selling the contaminated
products to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
consumers in New York.

Kimberley-Clark Corporation is an American multinational personal
care corporation, with its principal place of business located in
Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                            
         James F. Murphy, Esq.
         LEWIS JOHS AVALLONE AVILES, LLP
         One CA Plaza, Suite 225
         Islandia, NY 11749
         Telephone: (631) 755-0101
         Facsimile: (631) 755-0117
         E-mail: jfmurphy@lewisjohs.com

                 - and –

         Michael R. Reese, Esq.
         REESE LLP
         100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10025
         Telephone: (212) 643-0500
         Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
         E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS: Manna Files Suit in District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Nick Manna, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. KONINKELIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-11017-DJC (D. Mass., June 17, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 325-4491
          Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com


LASERSHIP INC: West Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WEST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC., SO SURE TRANSPORTS, INC.,
and UNKNOWN SUBCONTRACTOR COMPANIES A, B, and C, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-05382 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week and failing to
provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants LaserShip, Inc.
and So Sure Transports, Inc. as a delivery driver for approximately
one and a half years. He was responsible for delivering packages to
customers on a pre-determined route in and around Westchester
County, New York.

Defendant LaserShip is a "last mile" courier company that
structures itself as a "sharing economy service" for online
retailers like Amazon. LaserShip obtains delivery drivers by hiring
them directly and by contracting with companies like So Sure and
Unknown Subcontractor Companies A, B, and C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          Jason Rozger, Esq.
          Raya F. Saksouk, Esq.
          MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP  
          80 Pine St., 33rd Fl.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 509-1616
          Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
          E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com
                  jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com
                  rsaksouk@nyemployeelaw.com

               - and -

          William Li, Esq.
          WILLIAM K. LI LAW, PLLC
          200 Park Ave., Ste. 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 380-8198
          E-mail: wli@wlilaw.com

LIMETREE BAY: Shirley Environmental Suit Goes to D. Virgin Islands
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HELEN SHIRLEY, ANISHA HENDRICKS, CRISTEL RODRIGUEZ,
JOSIE BARNES, ARLEEN MILLER, ROSALBA ESTEVEZ, ISIDORE JULES, JOHN
SONSON, AND VIRGINIE GEORGE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. LIMETREE BAY VENTURES, LLC, LIMETREE BAY
TERMINALS, LLC, and LIMETREE BAY REFINING, LLC, Case No.
SX-21-CV-411, was removed from the Superior Court of the Virgin
Islands to the U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin
Islands on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of the Virgin Islands assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00259 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to adequately
control the pollution emissions at the oil refinery formerly
operated by Hovensa LLC and failure to take appropriate
environmental and health precautions regarding re-starting an idled
oil refinery.

Limetree Bay Ventures, LLC is an energy company located in St.
Croix, Virgin Islands.

Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC is an operator of oil terminals located
in the Virgin Islands.

Limetree Bay Refining, LLC is an oil refinery company located in
St. Croix, Virgin Islands. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Carl A. Beckstedt III, Esq.
         BECKSTEDT & KUCZYNSKI LLP
         2162 Church Street
         Christiansted, VI 00820
         Telephone: (340) 719-8086
         Facsimile: (800) 886-6831
         E-mail: carl@beckstedtlaw.com

LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Employee Discrimination Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Anderson, writing for Precinct Reporter, reports that money
aside, the daily grind has been a brutal battle for Black employees
at the City of Long Beach, having suffered years of racist
harassment from their supervisors, even as some of the city's
leadership praised the Ku Klux Klan. That, and many other
allegations of discrimination in the city's departments is detailed
within a 35-page class action lawsuit filed June 10.

Pulling from the City's 2018 Workforce Demographics Report, the
lawsuit points out that Black employees make up 13% and white
employees make up 38% of the City's workforce, but that 65% of the
City's Black employees make under $60,000, compared to 34% of white
employees.

According to the complaint, 54% of the city's employees who earn
$180,000 or more salary are white, compared to 13% Black.

In the recent class action against the city, former and current
employee plaintiffs Christopher Stuart, Eric Bailey, Deborah Hill,
Sharon Hamilton and Donnell Russell Jauregui describe a litany of
charges of racism within the hiring process.

The complaint says that Blacks are the only minority racial group
to have declined in representation, and, compared to whites, have
vast salary discrepancies. Allegations include that the city's
leadership and Human Resources department, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Office and Civil Service Commission not only failed to
address discrimination and retaliation, but also tried to suppress
complaints and preserve white supremacy.

"Fueling these disparities is the City's pattern or practice of
anti-Black culture, allowing anti-Black repeat harassers to
terrorize Black employees unabated, permitting City leaders to
promote the Ku Klux Klan, allowing City leaders to tone, dress, and
hair police Black employees, and race clustering Black employees
into lower-paying positions or unclassified roles," the complaint
states.

Other recent lawsuits referenced within the class action describe
how Black employees endured years of denigrating treatment, were
excluded from workshops or advancement by Kandice Taylor Sherwood,
the head of the civil service department. That lawsuit against
Taylor-Sherwood settled for $701,000 earlier this year.

During her 4.5 years, the complaint states that Taylor-Sherwood
made clear that Black employees would not be hired or promoted if
they wore braids, if they didn't dress like white employees, or
speak in what used to be known as Ebonics, according to the
complaint.

"In other words, she did not want people who are "too Black" in her
department," the lawsuit said. "Indeed, Ms. Taylor-Sherwood and her
direct report, Deputy Director Crystal Slaten (a Pacific Islander
woman), frequently criticized Black employees, including Ms.
Hamilton, for not dressing "professional," while saying nothing to
non-Black employees wearing exercise clothes, sneakers, and flip
flops in the office."

An official response from the Long Beach City Manager's office
about the recent lawsuit said the city is committed to maintaining
a discrimination free workplace for all city employees and
candidates for employment and takes pride in its diverse
workforce.

The city said that it has been served with a copy of the lawsuit
and is thoroughly reviewing the allegations contained in the
complaint.

"The City reaffirms its commitment that no person shall be
discriminated against on the basis of race or any other protected
class," the statement said.

Shauna Madison with the Law Office of Medina Orthwein LLP, said
that she and other attorneys on the case do not know how many
racial or discrimination lawsuits that the city of Long Beach is
currently juggling at this time.

"We, however, anticipate that there are many employees, like our
class representatives, who have experienced racial discrimination
while working at the City of Long Beach who are eager to have their
claims heard, investigated and rectified," said Madison by email.

Often, cities settle these types of complaints with taxpayer
dollars, however, little changes over the long run.

Madison said that policy change is an essential component of this
class action and that their office is happy to discuss proposed
changes with the City of Long Beach as soon as possible.

Some examples of proposed ways to effectuate policy changes include
the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission, she said.
Also, the retention of an outside expert to conduct an equity
analysis of pay, promotion, and job classifications, as well as the
appointment of a compliance officer to ensure that true policy
change is implemented.

The law firm is inviting current or former Black City employees
that believe they have been racially discriminated against to fill
out a form on their website.

On the question of the hopeful outcome or remedy for this lawsuit,
Madison added, "For the City of Long Beach to truly "acknowledge,
listen, convene, and catalyze" the discrimination that numerous
City employees have experienced. This class action is an
opportunity to continue the mission of the City's Racial Equity and
Reconciliation Initiative in a way that provides both monetary and
programmatic relief to the City's impacted Black employees."

For more information or to sign on to the lawsuit, see
www.medinaorthwein.com/lb-city-class-action [GN]

LYNDEN, WA: Faces Class Action Over Common Area Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Calvin Bratt, writing for Lynden Tribune, reports that the
Homestead homeowners' lawsuit over common area fees has become a
class-action case, and the suit presses the City of Lynden as well
as golf course owner Morris Chen of Canada to have a part in
solutions.

Lawyers for the 11 primary plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
or revised list of claims, on May 25 in the Whatcom County Superior
Court case. Also, attorneys K. David Andersson and Matthew Davis
answered questions about the case during a May 12 Zoom town-hall
meeting that is now publicly posted
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYN_XjTd74E).

The case took shape in early 2020 after fees for that year were
raised from $36 in 2019 to $93 per month per parcel owner.

As many as 1,200 property owners are in the extensive residential
and golf community stretching the mile across north Lynden between
Benson and Bender roads. They have a stake by paying the monthly
charges, although some have refused to pay it and have diverted
their amount to a trust fund for the legal fight.

The suit identifies 8.77 acres of assorted common open space
throughout the development. Just a $30 monthly maintenance fee
would raise more than $2,000 per acre per month to maintain the
common open space, the suit claims.

The homeowners want to gain control of the common open space
themselves, or have it turned over to the city for parks. Although
language in the Master Declaration setting up Homestead in 1992 is
conflicting, the fact is that no development-wide homeowners'
association was ever created or currently exists.

The common areas are owned by Chen, who has a contract with MJ
Management, consisting of Mick O'Bryan and Josh Williams, to
maintain them as well as to run the 18-hole Homestead Golf Course.

A contention of the lawsuit is that funds received for common open
space maintenance from homeowners is impossibly "co-mingled" with
those used to run the golf course.

Chen, as owner today under the corporate name 18 Paradise, claims
the same rights as set up by original Homestead developer Jim
Wynstra of Lynden in the founding documents.

At the town-hall meeting, Tom Staehr, one of the plaintiffs, also
spoke for what has been done as the Homestead Parcel Owners group
that has created a website in support of the lawsuit. As to whether
negotiation should be given more priority, Staehr said it was tried
for several months in early 2020, but it did not yield any
progress.

Attorney Davis said, "The problem here is that we cannot negotiate
with MJ Management because they have no power. The only person that
can do this is Paradise (Chen)."

The attorneys said that after filing the amended complaint, next
steps for the suit are to ask for a trial date to be set and to
depose (interview on the record) the City of Lynden and Chen
himself, the latter possibly having to be done in Canada. Chen
lives in Burnaby, B.C.

Davis said it makes sense for Paradise to transfer the common areas
to a Homestead homeowners' association, once formed. The attorney
also said that in deposition, Wynstra stated he did not intend to
have a functioning homeowners' association for Homestead, at least
not at the beginning.

The attorneys also say the City of Lynden should enforce an
obligation that was never fulfilled by Homestead Northwest under
its Planned Residential Development agreement in the 1990s, that
is, to form a homeowners association that could have some say about
the common areas.

"The city can fix all of this," said Davis at one point on May 12.
In the same way it would crack down if someone built a house
without a building permit, he said, it is a violation of code.
Instead, he said, the message given by the city's attorneys is that
the city is "sort of a neutral observer" and "they just want out
(of the lawsuit)."

Judge Robert E. Olson is the presiding judge on the case, and he
allowed the class-action refiling of the amended complaint.

Approximately 90% of those who are eligible to be in the class have
opted to do, the Parcel Owners website states.

Another claim against 18 Paradise in the case is that it used some
funds raised at Homestead to aid another golf course owned by Chen,
Sea Links at Birch Bay. [GN]

MAPCO EXPRESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vasser, Lusane Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY VASSER and AMY LUSANE,
individually and on behalf of a collective of others similarly
situated, v. MAPCO EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00665 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. Judge entered an order:

   1. denying Mapco's Motion to Dismiss;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and

   3. conditionally certifying the following collective action
      class:

      "All female Store Managers at Defendant Mapco Express, Inc.'s

      and other similarly situated current and former employees
      holding comparable positions but different titles at Mapco's

      locations nationwide at any time from the three years prior
      to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint, June 4, 2017 to the
      present."

      Additionally, the Court orders that:

      1. Within 14 days of the entry of this order, the Defendant
         will provide to Plaintiffs a list, in electronic format,
         of all female persons employed by Mapco as Store Managers

         nationwide including: names, addresses, telephone numbers,

         dates of employment, locations of employment, social
         security numbers, and work and personal e-mail addresses;

      2. Notice and Consent to Join Forms shall be sent to all
         members of the Collective via First class U.S. Mail, text

         message, and email;

      3. A Reminder Postcard shall issue via First Class U.S. Mail

         and email to members of the Collective who, as of half-way

         through the completion of the notice period, have not
         submitted a completed Consent to Join Form;

      4. Plaintiffs are authorized to create a website where
         members of the Collective may review the Notice and
         electronically submit a Consent to Join Form; and

      5. A copy of the Notice shall be posted in a conspicuous
         location in the "break room" or similar office space where

         such legal notices are normally posted at each of the
         Defendant's locations in which Collective members are or
         were employed.

Mapco shall also provide Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable
file (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with the name, mailing address,
phone number, dates of employment, restaurant location, Social
Security Number, and employee ID number for each such worker, and
to conspicuously post the notice in store break rooms.

Joy Vasser and Amy Lusane, two female convenience store managers,
brought this single count individual and collective action claim
under the Equal Pay Act, claiming that they were paid less than
similarly situated male store managers by Mapco.

Mapco is a large gas station and convenience store chain with
locations throughout the Southeastern United States. Vasser managed
Mapco stores near Memphis while Lusane managed stores near
Montgomery, Alabama.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AjLHwq at no extra charge.[CC]

MARIANNA ZADOV: Arakelyan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marianna Zadov P.A.
The case is styled as Armenui Arakelyan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Marianna Zadov P.A., Case No.
9:21-cv-81143-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2021).

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

Dr. Marianna Zadov, DDS is a Dentistry Practitioner in Boca Raton,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


MDL 2992: Smith Sues Over Management Issues re EDD Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case docketed as Stephanie Smith and Alan Karam, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank
of America, N.A., and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01466 (N.D. Cal., March 1, 2021), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on June 15,
2021 under Case No. 21-cv-01115, pursuant to the transfer order of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and consolidated in
MDL No. 2992, "In re Bank of America California Unemployment
Benefits Litigation" assigned to the Hon. Judge District Judge
Larry Alan Burns.

The actions in this MDL present common factual questions arising
from the allegation that defendant Bank of America, the entity
contracted by California to distribute unemployment benefits to
eligible recipients, failed to safeguard and properly manage
benefits during the pandemic and unlawfully froze or denied access
to funds in recipients' debit card accounts.

Judge Michael S. Berg serves as the magistrate judge on the MDL.

Smith and Karam seek declaratory and injunctive relief, a refund
for the value of unauthorized transactions from their California
Employment Development Department accounts, an award of all
recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages sustained,
including disgorgement, unjust enrichment, restitution, and all
other available relief under applicable law, an award of punitive
damages pursuant to applicable law, refund of reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses as permitted by California Code of Civil
Procedure, taxable costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and any other relief resulting from negligence, negligent
performance of contract, negligent failure to warn, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violation of
California's Consumer Privacy Act, Unfair Competition Law and
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Bank of America, N.A., is one of the largest banking associations
in the United States. It has an exclusive contract with the State
of California to administer Employment Development Department (EDD)
benefits.

Stephanie Smith was a salesperson who suddenly lost her job because
of the COVID-19 pandemic. After losing her job, she was eligible
and applied for EDD unemployment benefits. In June 2020, she began
receiving unemployment benefits through Bank of America, which
issued her a prepaid debit card to access her benefits. Despite
never using her card for a purchase, ATM withdrawal, or other
transaction benefits from her EDD account to her regular bank
account, fraudulent unauthorized purchases appeared on her EDD
account in late November 2020. Upon discovering the unauthorized
transactions, Ms. Smith immediately reported them to Bank of
America, but Bank of America has never reimbursed her for or
communicated with her about the unauthorized transactions.

Alan Karam resides in Palos Verdes Estates, California. He operates
a food truck in the Los Angeles area and applied for unemployment
benefits after restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
limited his ability to operate his business. Karam received a Bank
of America EDD prepaid debit card in or around June 2020 to access
his benefits. He used the card to make in-person retail purchases
and to withdraw money from ATMs. In August 2020, his EDD account
was subject to over $2,000 in fraudulent unauthorized transactions,
which he immediately reported to Bank of America. Although Bank of
America initially credited the full amount back to his EDD account,
the bank -- without notice or explanation -- reversed the credit in
November 2020, causing his account balance to go negative. In
January 2021, after months of Mr. Karam calling Bank of America,
the funds were finally re-credited to his EDD account. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
      Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             amurphy@cpmlegal.com
             bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
             akirtley@cpmlegal.com

MUSICTODAY II: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Musictoday II, LLC.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Musictoday II, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03638 (E.D.N.Y., June 29,
2021).

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

Musictoday -- https://www.musictoday.com/ -- is an entertainment
marketing company located in Crozet, near Charlottesville,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


MYLAN NV: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Kansas EpiPen Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris (NASDAQ: VTRS) on June 23 announced that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas ruled, in substantial part, in
Mylan's favor on the company's summary judgment motion in the class
action related to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The company is pleased with the court's decision to dismiss all of
the plaintiffs' claims under the federal RICO statute, which
include claims asserted against Mylan's former CEO Heather Bresch.
The court also dismissed claims alleging that Mylan foreclosed
branded competition through rebate arrangements with pharmacy
benefit managers.

The only remaining claim in this class action pertains to a patent
settlement between Pfizer and Teva and other alleged actions
regarding the launch of Teva's generic epinephrine auto-injector.
The June 23 ruling was not a decision on the merits of that claim
and did not resolve the claim in plaintiffs' favor. The court's
decision does, however, vindicate the company's continued
perseverance in defending itself against a series of claims over
the past few years relating to EpiPen that have proven to be
baseless, and provide the company with the opportunity to further
defend itself vigorously in a trial currently scheduled to begin
September 7, 2021. The company firmly believes that Mylan's conduct
was lawful and pro-competitive, and that plaintiffs will have great
difficulty proving damages resulting from Mylan's actions.

The June 23 ruling follows a December 2020 decision by the same
court granting summary judgment in Mylan's favor in a separate
lawsuit brought by Sanofi related to EpiPen in which the court also
rejected all of Sanofi's claims that Mylan engaged in
anticompetitive practices to market EpiPen.

                         About Viatris

Viatris Inc. (NASDAQ: VTRS) is a new kind of healthcare company,
empowering people worldwide to live healthier at every stage of
life. We provide access to medicines, advance sustainable
operations, develop innovative solutions and leverage our
collective expertise to connect more people to more products and
services through our one-of-a-kind Global Healthcare Gateway(R).
Formed in November 2020, Viatris brings together scientific,
manufacturing and distribution expertise with proven regulatory,
medical and commercial capabilities to deliver high-quality
medicines to patients in more than 165 countries and territories.
Viatris' portfolio comprises more than 1,400 approved molecules
across a wide range of therapeutic areas, spanning both
non-communicable and infectious diseases, including globally
recognized brands, complex generic and branded medicines, a growing
portfolio of biosimilars and a variety of over-the-counter consumer
products. With a global workforce of approximately 45,000, Viatris
is headquartered in the U.S., with global centers in Pittsburgh,
Shanghai and Hyderabad, India. Learn more at viatris.com and
investor.viatris.com, and connect with us on Twitter at
@ViatrisInc, LinkedIn and YouTube. [GN]


NCAA: Sparksman Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph
Sparksman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01909-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., June 28, 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.


NEUTROGEN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Benzene in Sunscreen Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Neutrogena Corporation in the wake of a report detailing
high levels of benzene in sunscreen products, with the plaintiff
arguing that the presence of the known human carcinogen in a
consumer product that is regularly used by adults and children is
"especially concerning and would affect a substantial part of the
population."

In the June 21 class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, plaintiff Shelli
French accused the sunscreen manufacturer of manufacturing products
containing "dangerously high levels of benzene". [GN]


NEUTROGENA CORPORATION: Brennan Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATHERINE BRENNAN and MICHELLE MANG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEUTROGENA
CORPORATION and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case
No. RG21101025, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04869 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and various California
common law theories by engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading
advertising, labeling and marketing of Neutrogena sunscreen
products which have been adulterated with benzene, a carcinogenic
chemical.

Neutrogena Corporation is an American brand of skin care, hair care
and cosmetics owned by Johnson & Johnson and is headquartered in
Los Angeles, California.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
consumer products based in New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
         Jonah M. Knobler, Esq.
         Andrew D. Cohen, Esq.
         PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
         1133 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 336-2000
         Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
         E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
                 jknobler@pbwt.com
                 acohen@pbwt.com

                - and –

         Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
         Brian H. Chun, Esq.
         Barbara L. Lyons, Esq.
         Saisruthi Paspulati, Esq.
         LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
         1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 357-4600
         Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
         E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
                 bchun@lkclaw.com
                 blyons@lkclaw.com
                 spaspulati@lkclaw.com

NEW JERSEY: Fischer Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Susan Fischer, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Susan Fischer, et al., Petitioners vs. Phil Murphy, Governor
of New Jersey, et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-1751.

Response is due on July 16, 2021.

Petitioners Fischer, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit in the case titled SUSAN G. FISCHER; JEANNETTE SPECK,
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; New Jersey
Education Association; Township of Ocean Education Association
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3914. The Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's holding that Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing to challenge the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act
(WDEA), thus granting summary judgment to all the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are New Jersey public school teachers who paid dues
and other fees to the state teachers' union, the New Jersey
Education Association ("NJEA"). Most Plaintiffs notified NJEA that
they wished to disaffiliate from the union and terminate all
payments to it. NJEA allowed the Plaintiffs to disaffiliate and to
opt out of the payments, but only after the lapse of waiting
periods set forth in a state statute and/or in their
union-membership agreements. The Plaintiffs assert that the waiting
periods are unconstitutional under Janus v. American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 2486
(2018).

The Plaintiffs sued the state governor and NJEA on behalf of
putative classes under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the
Defendants violated Janus by collecting union dues from them
without their consent and after they indicated that they wished to
terminate all such payments and seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment
that the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act ("WDEA") and
Defendants' revocation practices are unconstitutional, (2) an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing that statute and
those practices, and (3) monetary damages for the dues that they
paid after they submitted their resignation notices.

Following targeted discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary
judgment. The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motions,
granted the Defendants' motions, and dismissed the case. The Court
held that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge
the WDEA because (1) its 10-day notice requirement "was not
enforced against the Plaintiffs as written," and (2) its 30-day
effective date permitted the Plaintiffs "to resign their union
memberships earlier than they otherwise would have been entitled
to" under their membership agreements, and so the statute did not
cause Plaintiffs any injury.

The District Court also rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that
Janus requires public-sector unions to obtain waivers of their
First Amendment rights before collecting dues from members. It held
that the Plaintiffs have a right to resign from the union and cease
paying union dues, but Janus does not serve to invalidate their
previously signed membership agreements or, concurrently, the
restrictions in those agreements relating to the effective date of
a membership-resignation notice.

Because the District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs lack
standing to challenge the statute and because Janus does not impact
their contractual obligations to the union, the Third Circuit
affirmed.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Susan Fischer, et al., are
represented by:

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL
           DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org

NEW ZEALAND: Dilworth School Abuse Victims Mull Suit v. HRC
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gay, writing for Lynden Tribune, reports that two survivors
of historical sexual abuse at Auckland's Dilworth School are taking
a class action claim to the Human Rights Commission.

The survivors are inviting others to join their claim which alleges
Dilworth School staff failed to protect students from systemic
sexual abuse at the school between 1970 and 2006.

The claim will seek damages on behalf of all boys who were sexually
abused and has been made in the name of Neil Harding and another
survivor with name suppression.

On June 24, Harding told Stuff he was wearing his Dilworth School
badge on his lapel to remind him of those who had been abused.

Dilworth School was founded in 1894 by James Dilworth. It has taken
in boys from disadvantaged backgrounds and broken homes, offering
them a high standard of education and boarding.

"As early as the 1970s," said Harding, "Dilworth School knew
vulnerable young boys in its care were being sexually abused by
staff and others in positions of power, yet the school failed to
stop the abuse from happening, allowing it to continue for over 30
years."

He claimed when boys were brave enough to speak out, they were
punished and silenced.

"The school also moved offenders on and actively sought suppression
orders to protect the school's reputation if the offenders were
convicted for their crimes," he claimed.

Harding faced Dilworth's former senior school assistant principal
Ian Robert Wilson when Wilson was sentenced in March.

In his victim impact statement, he spoke of the devastating impact
of the abuse.

He told Stuff he had since learned a complaint was made about
Wilson before Wilson abused him but nothing was done.

"I realised that if the school had done what it should have done, I
wouldn't have been abused. That's what really shocked me . . .
Dilworth is just as responsible as if they did it themselves."

Harding said he was still seeking peace and healing, some 40 years
later. The school expressed its "sorrow and sadness" but that is
not enough.

Harding said the school needed to own its role in allowing the
abuse to happen.

"This isn't about the money . . . it's about redress and the
appropriate restitution."

Harding is hopeful other survivors will join the action with the
Human Rights Commission.

"I want to cut the path that they can walk . . . really, it's about
them."

He hopes that by taking the action, survivors can get their lives
back on track.

Dilworth Trust Board chairman Aaron Snodgrass said the details of
the complaint were confidential, and he would not be making any
comment.

Harding said he had a strong legal team behind him who are working
on the case for free.

They include lawyers Rachael Reed QC and Ali Van Ammers, with law
firm Wilson Harle backing the action.

In a statement, Reed said the team would be seeking the "absolute
maximum amount" in compensation for the survivors.

"At the heart of this new legal claim is Dilworth's accountability
for their failure to protect the boys in their care. The school was
responsible for caring and protecting vulnerable boys in our
community, instead they permitted them to be sexually abused."

The action is being brought under the Human Rights Act.

Under the Act, once a complaint is laid, a dispute resolution
process kicks in, administered by the Human Rights Commission. If a
resolution is not reached, the claim can then go to the tribunal.

Just how many will join Harding's claim is not known but over 120
people have made complaints to police as part of Operation
Beverley, the investigation into alleged historical sexual abuse
linked to Dilworth.

So far, police have laid charges against 11 men, three of which
have since died.

Survivors and others with information regarding claims of sexual
abuse at Dilworth can contact the team via their website. [GN]

NISSAN NORTH: Court Approves Bid to Extend Briefing Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIDA JOHNSON, ET AL.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order that deadlines in
this class action be extended as follows:

           Event                        Deadline      Proposed
                                                      Deadline

-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to        Aug. 2, 2021    Aug. 2, 2021
   file their reply and rebuttal
   expert disclosures and reports
   on their motion for class
   certification

-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file   June 29, 2021   Aug. 13, 2021
   their oppositions to NNA's
   Motions to Exclude

-- Deadline for NNA to file          July 6, 2021    Sept. 3, 2021
   replies in support of its
   Motions to Exclude

-- Class Certification and           Aug. 25, 2021   Sept. 29,
2021
   Motions to Exclude Hearing

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 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ToEv1B at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS G ROSSMAN , PLLC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
                  aedwards@milberg.com
                  msilvey@milberg.com
                  mbreit@milberg.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
          An Truong, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259.2222
          E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
                  atruong@simmonsfirm.com

The Counsel for Defendant Nissan North America, Inc., are:

          Amir M. Nassihi, Esq.
          Andrew L. Chang, Esq.
          H. Grant Law, Esq.
          William R. Sampson, Esq.
          Holly Pauling Smith, 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
                  wsampson@shb.com
                  hpsmith@shb.com

NUIX LTD: Shine Lawyers Mull Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that plaintiff
firm Shine Lawyers may soon commence proceedings against listed
tech company Nuix, on behalf of shareholders.

The national plaintiff firm said it is considering the class action
in the wake of Nuix's alleged overstatement of sales forecasts and
for potentially failing to adhere to continuous disclosure
obligations.

The news follows a statement to the ASX by the tech company,
earlier on Thursday, 24 June 2021, noting that a search warrant was
executed at the company's Sydney office, "seeking documents in
relation to an investigation into the affairs of an individual".

"Nuix understands that the warrant does not relate to any
allegation of wrongdoing by the company," the statement read.

Shine class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp said that the
firm is investigating the conduct of Nuix -- which provides
investigative analytics and intelligence software used by
international regulators, tax officials, and law enforcement
agencies -- in the lead-up to and the period following its float on
the ASX late last year.

In its statement announcing potential intent to launch a class
action, Shine noted that Nuix (ASX: NXL) commenced trading at
$5.31, but by late February of this year, the company had only
achieved approximately 44 per cent of its targeted revenue forecast
of $193.5 million.

"Although NXL also affirmed its prospectus guidance of $193.5
million revenue for FY21, the announcements on 26 February 2021
resulted in a 32 per cent reduction in NXL's share price for one
day, leaving shareholders in a shocking position," the firm wrote.

"On 21 April 2021, NXL then downgraded its revenue forecast from
the prospectus guidance. The share price fell a further 15 per cent
following this announcement."

Following this, in late May, Nuix issued its second revenue
downgrade, Shine continued, which resulted in a further 18 per cent
hit to its share price. In early June, there were reports that
corporate watchdog ASIC had begun looking into whether the tech
company had overstated its financial forecasts ahead of its
listing.

Plaintiff firm Shine Lawyers may soon commence proceedings against
listed tech company Nuix, on behalf of shareholders.

The national plaintiff firm said it is considering the class action
in the wake of Nuix's alleged overstatement of sales forecasts and
for potentially failing to adhere to continuous disclosure
obligations.

The news follows a statement to the ASX by the tech company,
earlier on Thursday, 24 June 2021, noting that a search warrant was
executed at the company's Sydney office, "seeking documents in
relation to an investigation into the affairs of an individual".

"Nuix understands that the warrant does not relate to any
allegation of wrongdoing by the company," the statement read.

Shine class actions practice leader Craig Allsopp said that the
firm is investigating the conduct of Nuix -- which provides
investigative analytics and intelligence software used by
international regulators, tax officials, and law enforcement
agencies -- in the lead-up to and the period following its float on
the ASX late last year.

In its statement announcing potential intent to launch a class
action, Shine noted that Nuix (ASX: NXL) commenced trading at
$5.31, but by late February of this year, the company had only
achieved approximately 44 per cent of its targeted revenue forecast
of $193.5 million.

"Although NXL also affirmed its prospectus guidance of $193.5
million revenue for FY21, the announcements on 26 February 2021
resulted in a 32 per cent reduction in NXL's share price for one
day, leaving shareholders in a shocking position," the firm wrote.

"On 21 April 2021, NXL then downgraded its revenue forecast from
the prospectus guidance. The share price fell a further 15 per cent
following this announcement."

Following this, in late May, Nuix issued its second revenue
downgrade, Shine continued, which resulted in a further 18 per cent
hit to its share price. In early June, there were reports that
corporate watchdog ASIC had begun looking into whether the tech
company had overstated its financial forecasts ahead of its
listing.

Finally, on 15 June 2021, Nuix announced that its CFO and chief
executive were both departing, with the former having been
terminated and the latter resigning.

"Our class action investigation is twofold to see if shareholders
have been misled, resulting in them losing significant amounts of
money," he explained.

"We are looking into whether the prospectus for the initial public
offering (IPO) misrepresented or omitted financial information and
potential risks in its forecast, which would be misleading or
deceptive to investors."

"The legal investigation is also seeking to determine whether or
not, once floated, NXL failed in its continuous disclosure
obligations to shareholders, given its share price has plummeted
several times in a relatively short space of time and is now
trading significantly below its listing price," Mr Allsopp added.

"Investors who purchased shares from the NXL float between 4
December 2020 and 31 May 2021, are encouraged to register their
interest in the class action." [GN]

O'REILLY AUTO: Fails to Pay Drivers Proper Wages, Pipich Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY PIPICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01120-L-LL (S.D. Cal.,
June 16, 2021) arises from the Defendant's failure to provide
proper payment of all wages, including regular and overtime wages,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant administered illegal
policies requiring its non-exempt workers to undergo COVID-19
screenings and security inspections each day without pay. These
pre-shift off-the-clock COVID-19 screenings and pre- and post-
shift security checks allegedly constitute compensable time that
was worked by Plaintiff and collective members.

Mr. Pipich worked for Defendant as a City Counter Route Driver from
approximately July 2015 to February 2021.

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC owns and operates a line of
automotive retailers that specializes in providing aftermarket
parts and accessories to both consumers and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: srios@bm.net

OCUGEN INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Ocugen, Inc.
('Ocugen' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ:OCGN) for violations of 10(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 February
2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 17, 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. Ocugen's information submission to the
FDA for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine failed to include
sufficient data to support an Emergency Use Authorization ('EUA').
The Company did not submit an EUA to the FDA. 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 Ocugen, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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

ORANGE PARK: Brings Appeal in Parker FDUTPA Suit to First DCA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Michael T. Angelo d/b/a Orange Park Auto Mall filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Timothy
Parker, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Michael T. Angelo d/b/a Orange Park Auto Mall,
Defendant, Case No. 16-2013-CA-009927-XXX, in the Florida First
District Court of Appeal.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court
of Appeal of Florida, First District, issued an Opinion reversing
the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case.

Parker purchased a vehicle from the Dealership and was charged $420
for title and registration fees. The sales contract signed by
Parker included a disclosure that the fees were estimated at the
time of sale but was silent about any overage. Eleven days after
the sale, the Dealership paid $403.90 to the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) for the title and registration
fees. The Dealership did not refund Parker the difference between
the estimate and the amount paid to the DHSMV ($16.10). Parker sued
the Dealership alleging that it violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by not refunding the difference
between the estimated title and registration fees and the amount
paid to the DHSMV.

The Dealership argued that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying the class because Parker did not allege a legally
sufficient FDUTPA claim, preventing the trial court from conducting
the rigorous analysis required before ordering class
certification.

The class complaint alleged that the Dealership violated FDUTPA by:
(1) overestimating the cost of title and registration fees and (2)
failing to refund the difference between the amount charged to
class members and the amount paid to the DHSMV.  

The appellate case is captioned as Michael T. Angelo d/b/a Orange
Park Auto Mall vs. Timothy Parker, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Case No. 1D21-1827, in the Florida First
District Court of Appeal, filed on June 17, 2021.[BN]


ORI ANUENUE: Fails to Accommodate Deaf Workers, ADA Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORI ANUENUE
HALE, INC.; OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES, INC.; and DOES 1-5
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00286-JMS-RT (D. Hawaii,
June 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully discriminated
against a class of deaf janitorial and custodial employees with
limited English proficiencies by failing to effectively engage in
the interactive process and denying them with reasonable
accommodations and the same benefits and privileges of employment
as their non-disabled co-workers. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to provide sign language interpreters for deaf employees at
staff meetings and repeatedly ignored their requests for such
accommodation during staff meetings. As a result, they were denied
the benefit and privilege of fully understanding the content of
these meetings, the suit alleges.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Ori Anuenue Hale, Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides
day activity, residential, and recreation leisure programs located
in Wahiawa, Hawaii.

Opportunities and Resources, Inc. is a non-profit organization that
provides day activity, residential, and recreation leisure programs
located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Anna Y. Park, Esq.
         Nakkisa Akhavan, Esq.
         U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
         255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90012
         Telephone: (213) 785-3083
         Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
         E-mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov

                - and –

         Eric Yau, Esq.
         U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
         300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 4-257
         Honolulu, HI 96850
         Telephone: (808) 800-2345
         Facsimile: (808) 541-3390
         E-mail: eric.yau@eeoc.gov

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Callahan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled MEREDITH CALLAHAN, et al., Plaintiffs
v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 28, 2021, Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied PeopleConnect's motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs Meredith Callahan and Lawrence Geoffrey Abraham have
filed a class action against Defendant PeopleConnect. According to
the Plaintiffs, PeopleConnect misappropriated their names,
photographs, and likenesses and used the same in advertising its
products and services, "including reprinted yearbooks and
subscription memberships to the website Classmates.com."

PeopleConnect is a company that collects yearbooks, scans the
yearbooks, and extracts information from the yearbooks (such as
names, photographs, schools attended, and so forth) to be put into
a database. Through a website that it owns and operates --
Classmates.com -- PeopleConnect "provides free access to some of
the personal information in its database in order to [1] drive
users to purchase its two paid products and [2] gather registered
users, from whom they profit by selling targeted ads."
PeopleConnect's two paid products are (1) "reprinted yearbooks that
retail for up to $99.95, and [(2)] a monthly subscription to
Classmates.com that retails for up to $3 per month. It "did not ask
consent from, give notice to, or provide compensation to
individuals before using their names, photographs, and biographical
information."

The Plaintiffs allege that by misappropriating and misusing
millions of Californian's names, photographs, and likenesses
without consent, PeopleConnect has harmed them by denying them the
economic value of their likenesses, violating their legally
protected rights to exclusive use of their likenesses, and
violating their right to seclusion. PeopleConnect has also earned
ill-gotten profits and been unjustly enriched.

The Defendant now seeks a review of order entered by Judge Chen
denying its motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Meredith Callahan, et al. v.
PeopleConnect, Inc., Case No. 21-16040, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant PeopleConnect, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
June 24, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 16, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on August 16, 2021;

   -- Appellant PeopleConnect, Inc. opening brief is due on
September 24, 2021;

   -- Appellees Lawrence Geoffrey Abraham and Meredith Callahan
answering brief is due on October 25, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Defendant-Appellant PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:

          Clifford Warren Berlow, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 840-7366
          E-mail: cberlow@jenner.com

               - and -

          Ian Gershengorn, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001-4412
          Telephone: (202) 639-6000
          E-mail: igershengorn@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-2246
          E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees MEREDITH CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE GEOFFREY
ABRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com

PEREZ HILTON: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perez Hilton
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Perez Hilton Management, Inc., Mario Armando
Lavandeira, Jr., Case No. 1:21-cv-03642 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., known professionally as Perez Hilton,
is an American blogger, columnist, and media personality.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PLANASA LLC: Trujillo Labor Code Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BLAS TRUJILLO and ALBERTO DE LA ROSA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLANASA, LLC;
PLANASA US HOLDINGS, LLC; PLANASA-CALIFORNIA REO, LLC; NORCAL
NURSERY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CV-20-002338, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04872 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure
to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay all wages when
due, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures, and unfair competition.

Planasa, LLC is an operator of plant nursery located in Anderson,
California.

Planasa US Holdings, LLC is an agricultural firm based in Anderson,
California.

Planasa-California Reo, LLC is an agricultural firm based in
Anderson, California.

Norcal Nursery, LLC is an operator of plant nursery located in
Anderson, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Anthony Raimondo, Esq.
         James D. Miller, Esq.
         Kevin B. Piercy, Esq.
         RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES
         7110 n. Marks Avenue, Suite 104
         Fresno, CA 93711
         Telephone: (559) 432-3000
         Facsimile: (559) 432-2242
         E-mail: apr@raimondoassociates.com
                 jdm@raimondoassociates.com
                 kbp@raimondoassociates.com

PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB)
between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important July 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Provention Bio 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 Provention Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2101.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the teplizumab Biologics
License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and
would require additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval; (2) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA lacked
the evidentiary support Provention Bio had led investors to believe
it possessed; (3) Provention Bio had thus overstated the teplizumab
BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline
for teplizumab; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Provention Bio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2101.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.

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]


ROBINHOOD: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Order Flow Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ROBINHOOD ORDER FLOW LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Robinhood will move the
Court on October 19, 2021 to deny Plaintiffs' class certification
bid.

Robinhood is a broker-dealer that offers customers the ability to
invest, commission-free, through a self-directed trading platform.
Customers place trades through Robinhood's website or smartphone
applications, which are then routed to other broker-dealers for
execution.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 29, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xbBW1o at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Russell Taylor, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: bwisoff@fbm.com
                  rtaylor@fbm.com

               - and -

          Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          8 919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
                  egreenfield@debevoise.com
                  bfetzer@debevoise.com

RSG CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sosa Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SOSA, CRISPIN SUAREZ, SIMEON D. BRAVO, CHARLES C. VASQUEZ
REYES, and JOSE ENRIQUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RSG CONSTRUCTION CORP., and
HARJIT SINGH, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03403
(E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated workers accurate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked, failure to pay spread-of-hours
premium for all hours worked, failure to furnish a wage notice upon
hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as carpenters,
cement masons, and other similarly titled personnel.

RSG Construction Corp. is a New York-based construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

SKILLZ INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ),
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT), Danimer Scientific,
Inc. (NYSE: DNMR), and Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ)

Class Period: December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021

Skillz and senior management repeatedly touted the company's
revenue growth and projections to support its valuation.

Defendants' statements were first brought into serious question on
Mar. 8, 2021, when analyst Wolfpack Research published a scathing
report, accusing Skillz of concealing that revenues from three
games responsible for 88% of Skillz's total revenues (Blitz,
Solitaire Cube, Blackout Bingo) substantially declined and
effectively gutted the company's growth projections.

Then, on April 18, 2021, Eagle Eye Research published a report
claiming Skillz's revenue recognition practices were "like
round-tripping where the company is effectively giving its
customers money to spend on SKLZ and recognizing revenue from it,
i.e. generating no net economic profits." Eagle Eye concluded "that
true cash revenue is less than ½ of what management portrays to
investors."

On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.56 per share, or more
than 11%, to close at $12.55 per share on April 20, 2021.

The complaint, filed on May 7, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) three games responsible for a
majority of Skillz's revenues had declined substantially; (ii)
Skillz's revenue recognition policy misrepresented the financial
condition of the company; (iii) unrealistic market growth,
specifically in the Android market; and (iv) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Skillz class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SKLZ

PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)

Class Period: November 16, 2020 to May 5, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

On May 6, 2021, before the markets opened, analyst Hindenburg
Research issued a scathing report concerning PureCycle. In its
report, Hindenburg wrote that "PureCycle represents the worst
qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential example of how
executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while hoisting
unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections onto the
public markets, leaving retail investors to face the ultimate
consequences." Hindenburg explained that it spoke with "multiple
former employees" of earlier companies that PureCycle's CEO and
other associated executives took public before PureCycle, "who said
that PureCycle's executives based their financial projections on
‘wild ass guessing,' brought companies public far too early, and
had deceived investors."

On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell approximately 40% per
share, from their May 5, 2021 close of $24.59 to a May 6, 2021
close of $14.83, on unusually heavy volume.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
issued 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.

For more information on the PureCycle class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PCT

Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR)

Class Period: October 5, 2020 to May 4, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021

On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not
Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer's
claims that Nodax, a plant-based plastic that Danimer markets,
breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The Wall
Street Journal article alleges that according to several experts on
biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated
and misleading." While Danimer reportedly asserts its claims are
factual, the article cites at least one expert as stating that
making broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not
accurate" and is "greenwashing."

On March 22, 2021, the first trading day following publication of
the Wall Street Journal article, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43
per share, or roughly 13%, to close at $43.55 per share on March
22, 2021.

Following the end of the Class Period, on April 22, 2021, Spruce
Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report on
Danimer, noting, among other red flags, various inconsistencies
with Legacy Danimer's (and Danimer's) historical and present claims
regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and
degradability, and the Company's expected profitability.

Following publication of the Spruce Point report, Danimer's stock
price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per share
on April 22, 2021.

Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on
Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated"
production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on
documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection ("KDEP") under
the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), all of which cast serious
doubt on the integrity of the Company's internal controls.

Following publication of this second Spruce Point report, Danimer's
stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to close at $22.14 per
share on April 22, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made 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.

For more information on the Danimer class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DNMR

Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER)

Class Period: December 1, 2020 to May 3, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

On May 4, 2021, before the markets opened, analyst Culper Research
issued a scathing report concerning Aterian. In its report, Culper
wrote that "the Company has ties to convicted criminals and is
promoting what we believe is an overhyped ‘AI' narrative and a
string of garbage acquisitions to mask the failure of its already
ill-conceived core business." Culper continued that "Aterian has
been largely unsuccessful in convincing other Amazon sellers to pay
for its ‘AIMEE' AI platform, and at least 5 former employees and
a former customer have expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's
legitimacy. We think that Aterian's underlying business has failed,
forcing the Company to obscure its poor performance with a series
of questionable acquisitions." Culper further wrote: "[w]e believe
that there are serious problems with Aterian's claims to maintain
strong organic growth and to drive M&A synergies: to us, neither of
these appears to be the case. . . . In our view, this suggests not
only that Aterian is unable to grow EBITDA at acquired businesses,
but that its core business is also failing to produce."

On this news, the price of Aterian stock fell from its May 3, 2021
close of $20.66 to a May 5, 2021 close of $15.72 per share, a
two-day drop of $3.04 per share or approximately 24%.

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

For more information on the Aterian class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ATER

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

SPANISH QUOTES: Smith Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spanish Quotes, Inc.
The case is styled as Regan Smith, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Spanish Quotes, Inc. doing
business as: We Speak Insurance, an Arizona Corporation; John Doe,
an unknown business entities; Case No. 8:21-cv-00244-JFB-MDN (D.
Neb., June 29, 2021).

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

We Speak Insurance -- https://www.hablamosseguros.com/en/ -- is the
largest provider of high quality consumer initiated auto and home
insurance calls from mobile search click-to-call methods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 South Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Fax: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


ST JOSEPH'S GENERAL: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Charach, Esq., and Madeleine Brown, Esq., of McCarthy
Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that Rule 56.01 of
Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure1 permits a defendant to move
against the plaintiff (or applicant) for security for costs. Such a
motion is a valuable strategic tool that defendants may forget is
available in Ontario for class proceedings.2 The order has the
practical benefit of reallocating the financial risk associated
with defending a class proceeding and, as Justice E.B.
Fitzpatrick's recent decision, Endean et al, Lind et al v. St.
Joseph's General Hospital,3 illustrates, it may also have ancillary
strategic benefits, such as providing an opportunity for a
well-prepared defendant to undermine a claim it perceives to be
frivolous.

Rule 56.01
An order for costs is discretionary and fact-driven.4 Rule 56.01
provides that the Court "may" make an order for security for costs
"as is just" where it appears that:

(a) the plaintiff or applicant is ordinarily resident outside
Ontario;

(b) the plaintiff or applicant has another proceeding for the same
relief pending in Ontario or elsewhere;

(c) the defendant or respondent has an order against the plaintiff
or applicant for costs in the same or another proceeding that
remain unpaid in whole or in part;

(d) the plaintiff or applicant is a corporation or a nominal
plaintiff or applicant, and there is good reason to believe that
the plaintiff or applicant has insufficient assets in Ontario to
pay the costs of the defendant or respondent;

(e) there is good reason to believe that the action or application
is frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff or applicant has
insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the defendant or
respondent; or

(f) a statute entitles the defendant or respondent to security for
costs. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 56.01 (1).

In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to make an order for
security for costs, the Court may take into account considerations
such as the merits of the claim, any delay in bringing the motion,
access to justice concerns and the public importance of the
litigation.5

Endean et al.
In Endean, two sets of class action plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking to reopen a trial (which they lost, appealed, and
ultimately lost again) to introduce new evidence. A costs award
from the trial remained outstanding. The defendant, St. Joseph's
General Hospital, moved for an order for security for costs in
response.

Justice Fitzpatrick ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered
both sets of plaintiffs to pay security for costs.

A central consideration for Justice Fitzpatrick in deciding whether
to order security for costs was his determination that the
plaintiffs' motion to reopen the trial did not have any good chance
of success:

. . . in the immediate case, the material before me on this motion
fails to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs' motion has a good chance
for success. The motion materials put forward by these plaintiffs
has the tone of an attempt at a "do over" of a type that is not to
be encouraged under the Rules of Civil Procedure. A "do over" is
different than a reopening of a trial with fresh evidence. It is an
attempt to re-argue the same points under the guise of something
new which in fact is not new at all.

[. . .]

In my view, the TMJ Plaintiffs are now seeking to place a large
mountain of paper before the court, all of which has no relevant
connection to the matters that were at issue at trial, to try and
reargue points that have already been dismissed.6

Although Justice Fitzpatrick's comments about the merits of the
plaintiffs' impending motion are not binding, they provide valuable
insight into the Court's views which may (along with the added
financial burden) discourage the plaintiffs from pursuing their
motion on its merits.

Key takeaways
Although Rule 56.01 motions are rare in the class proceedings
context, Endean is a reminder that, in the right circumstances,
Rule 56.01 can be a valuable, practical and strategic tool for
class action defendants.

Notably, the decision in Endean arrives shortly after the coming
into force of amendments to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992,7
which established a direct right of action for defendants in class
proceedings to recover costs -- and seek security for those costs
-- directly from a third-party litigation funder.8 These amendments
may increase the availability and utility of an order for security
for costs.9

Class action defendants should seriously consider taking full
advantage of these amendments by bringing motions for security for
costs in appropriate cases. [GN]

SUBJECT WELL: Faces Turizo Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Turizo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUBJECT WELL, INC., Case No. CACE-21-012014 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., June 17, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that to promote its clinical trials, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging utilizing an
automatic telephone dialing system. Through this action, the
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen and permanent
resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is the franchisor of the Subway brand for the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


TARENA INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TEDU) between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tarena
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tarena class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html
or 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain employees were interfering with external audits
of Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena
suffered from revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged
in business transactions with organizations owned, invested in or
controlled by Tarena employees or their family members, which in
some instances were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014
through the end of Class Period were not accurate; and (5) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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 23,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.html
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. 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]

TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Yili Qiu Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Yili Qiu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tarena International, Inc., Shaoyun Han,
and Yuduo Yang, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03502, (E.D. N.Y., June
22, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tarena provides professional education services including
professional information technology training courses and non-IT
training courses. Tarena offers K-12 education services in China.
Tarena's American Depository Shares (ADS) trade on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "TEDU."

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that
certain employees were interfering with external audits of the
company's financial statements for certain periods; that the
company suffered from revenue and expense inaccuracies; and that
the company engaged in business transactions with organizations
owned, invested in or controlled by company employees or their
family members, which in some instances were not properly disclosed
by the company.

On this news, the price of Tarena ADSs fell 1.2% to close at $5.02
per ADS on May 1, 2019, damaging investors. On May 17, 2019, the
company filed a Form 6-K with the SEC announcing that it received a
notification letter from NASDAQ Listing Qualifications stating that
the company was not in compliance with NASDAQ Listing rules due to
its failure to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2018. On this news, the price of Tarena
ADSs fell 4.8% to close at $3.73 on May 20, 2019, further damaging
investors.

On July 24, 2019, Tarena filed a Form 6-K with the SEC providing an
update on the audit committee's independent review of the company's
financial statements which deemed the financial results and audited
financial statements for periods prior to 2017 "should not be
relied upon, pending the completion of the Independent Audit
Committee Review." On this news, the price of Tarena ADSs fell 4.7%
to close at $1.63 per ADS on July 25, 2019.

Yili Qiu purchased Tarena securities and was economically damaged
thereby. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10116
      Phone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


TRADER JOE'S: Gierwatowski Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert Gierwatowski, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
2 1:21-cv-01119 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-05024-SK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Trader Joe's -- https://www.traderjoes.com/home -- is an American
chain of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rory Farrell Collins, Esq.
          Sarah L Brew, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE REATH
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 766-8744
          Email: rory.collins@faegredrinker.com
                 sarah.brew@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Ruben Ignacio Gonzalez, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (847) 858-8461
          Email: ruben.gonzalez@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Tyler Adam Young, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 766-8610
          Email: tyler.young@faegredrinker.com


TRANSAMERICA CORP: Settles ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Transamerica Corp. told an Iowa federal judge
on June 23 that it has inked a $5.4 million deal to settle an ERISA
class action in which roughly 24,500 current and former workers
accused it of stuffing its 401(k) plan with underperforming
proprietary investments. [GN]

TRANSCYND LLC: Johnson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary April Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Transcynd, LLC, and Strategic Cat Solutions,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00555, (W.D. Tex., June 22, 2021) seeks
a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee as a result of failing to
pay proper overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act within
the applicable statutory limitations period.

Defendants' primary business is partnering with insurance carriers
to process insurance claims. Johnson worked for Defendants as an
Independent Adjuster from May of 2020 until June of 2021. Defendant
generally paid Johnson for each claim or estimate that she
completed but did not pay her an overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 in any week, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      Kirkpatrick Plaza
      10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TRAXNYC CORP: Roman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Roman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Traxnyc
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05480 (S.D. N.Y., June 22, 2021),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Traxnyc Corp. operates the TRAXNYC online and physical retail store
as well as https://www.traxnyc.com/ and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.
Roman is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
             Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
             Dana@Gottlieb.legal


TRILLIANT FOOD: Settlement Deal in Mitchell Suit Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN MITCHELL on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRILLIANT
FOOD AND NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00147-WCG (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order regarding the
parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of class and
collective action settlement and for certification for settlement
purposes as follows:

   1. The parties' Settlement Agreement & Release, is
preliminarily
      approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a

      bona-fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")

      and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL");

   2. Certification is granted, for settlement purposes only, of a

      class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as defined as:

      "all hourly-paid, non-exempt Production Employees employed by

      Trilliant within the two years prior to this action's filing

      who have not been compensated for all hours worked in a
      workweek as a result of Trilliant's failure to compensate
      said employees for compensable, on-duty meal periods lasting

      less than 30 consecutive, duty-free minutes in duration (the

      "WWPCL Class");

   3. Certification is granted, for settlement purposes only, of an

      FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
      defined as:

      "all hourly-paid, non-exempt Production Employees employed by

      Trilliant within the three years prior to this action's
      filing who have not been compensated for all hours worked in

      excess of 40 hours in a workweek as a result of Trilliant's
      failure to compensate said employees at an overtime rate of
      pay for compensable meal periods lasting less than 30
      consecutive, duty free minutes in duration (the "FLSA
      Collective" and, together with the "WWPCL Class," the
      "Settlement Class");

   4. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Mitchell, is appointed as the Class
      Representative;

   5. Walcheske & Luzi, LLC is APPOINTED as Class Counsel pursuant

      to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);

   6. The parties' Notice of Class and Collective Action and
      Proposed Settlement, (the "Notice"), is approved and
      constitutes the best notice practicable under the
      circumstances, including individual notices to all Settlement

      Class members who can be identified with reasonable effort,
      and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to
      Settlement Class members, in full compliance with the
      requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process
      Clause of the United States Constitution;

   7. Trilliant's counsel is ordered to provide Class Counsel with

      an Excel spreadsheet list of the names and last known
      addresses of the Settlement Class members within five
      business days of the date of this Order, according to records

      maintained by Trilliant, in separate columns in the following

      format: "First Name"; "Last Name"; "Address"; "City";
      "State"; and "Zip Code";

      Class Counsel is ORDERED to send a copy of the Notice to the
      Settlement Class members via U.S. first class mail within
      five (5) business days of its receipt of address information

      from Trilliant's counsel;

   9. Each Settlement Class member who has properly and timely
      opted-into the FLSA Collective shall be bound by the parties'

      Settlement Agreement & Release;

  10. Each WWPCL Class member who wishes to be excluded from the
      WWPCL Class must opt-out pursuant to the instructions set
      forth in the Notice, and any such requests shall be mailed
      and postmarked within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the

      Notice;

  11. Any Settlement Class member who wishes to object to the
      Settlement Agreement & Release shall file and serve such
      written objections pursuant to the instructions set forth in

      the Notice no later than 30 calendar days after the mailing
      of the Notice, together with copies of all papers in support

      of his or her position;

  12. Any Settlement Class member who has not properly and timely
      requested exclusion from the Settlement Class shall be bound

      by the Settlement Agreement & Release in the event this Court

      issues a Final Order Approving Settlement;

  13. A Fairness Hearing shall be scheduled approximately 60 days
      from entry of this Order to determine whether the Settlement

      Agreement & Release should be finally approved as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate, and whether a proposed Final Order

      Approving the Settlement should be entered; and

  14. Any remaining Motions -- including a Motion for Approval of
      Named Plaintiff's Service Award, a Motion for Approval of
      Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and a Joint Motion

      for Final Approval of Settlement -- shall be filed at least
      seven calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing, at which
      time this Court shall decide such Motions.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dx63ZA at no extra charge.[CC]


TUSHY INC: Nardo Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tushy, Inc. The case
is styled as Raymond Nardo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tushy, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03648 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021).

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

TUSHY -- https://hellotushy.com/ -- is a bidet attachment company
that helps ease environmental strife and fight the global
sanitation crisis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


UBIQUITI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Peloton Interactive, Inc. (PTON)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 28, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peloton-interactive-inc-class-a-common-stock-pton-securities-litigation

Ubiquiti Inc. (UI)
Class Period: 1/11/2021 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ubiquiti-inc-securities-litigation

RLX Technology Inc. (RLX)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-rlx-technology-inc-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                        About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]

UNION INSURANCE: Deer Mountain Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Deer Mountain Inn LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DEER MOUNTAIN INN LLC, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNION
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-984, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 4, 2021, Judge
Brenda K. Sannes granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff Deer Mountain Inn, on behalf of itself and a putative
multi-state class and New York sub-class of similarly situated
businesses, brought the action against the Defendant seeking
damages and declaratory relief in connection with the Defendant's
denial of insurance coverage for certain of the Plaintiff's
business losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff operates the Deer Mountain Inn, a country inn and
restaurant located in Tannersville, New York. Like many businesses
in New York and across the country, the Plaintiff has been impacted
by the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, a highly contagious
coronavirus that was discovered in China in December 2019 and has
since spread across the world, infecting millions of people in the
U.S. and globally. In order to curb the spread of COVID-19 through
human-to-human and surface-to-human transmission, civil authorities
around the country have issued orders temporarily closing or
restricting the operations of a broad range of businesses.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant "does not intend to cover
losses caused by the Closure Orders as part of" the Policy, and
that the Defendant has denied similar claims by other Class members
across-the-board, a practice which is belied by not only the
express terms of the insurance policies, but also by: (a) the Small
Business Administration's requirement that reimbursement from
business interruption insurance be submitted along with an
application for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan; and (b) America's
Small Business Development Center, whose COVID-19 newsletter
expressly states Business interruption insurance also applies if
government actions cause operations to cease temporarily, which
results in a loss for a firm.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the case dismissal order
entered by Judge Sannes.

The appellate case is captioned as Deer Mountain Inn LLC v. Union
Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1513, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 21, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Deer Mountain Inn LLC, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
           BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com   

Defendant-Appellee Union Insurance Company is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Bernstein, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          80 Southwoods Boulevard
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 463-5400
          E-mail: jbernstein@goldbergsegalla.com  

               - and -

          Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8087
          E-mail: aianniello@steptoe.com

UNITED NATIONS: Ogunjobi Appeals COVID-19 Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adesijuola Ogunjobi filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled TOKS BANC CORP., ET AL., AND THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED NATIONS, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, Case No.
3:20-cv-00393-HEH, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit seeks to declare corona virus/COVID-19 aka "virus scam"
a "scam," "sham," "fraud," and total global nuisance and paranoia
due to no strong evidence to sustain such virus exists let alone to
cause sickness and death in living persons because mere living
persons being declared sick and dead from any virus does not
constitute evidence of pandemic.

According to the complaint, since the beginning of human existence
sickness and death is normal not abnormal. No country, entity or
natural person can be linked to be responsible for this virus.
There is no scientific evidence COVID-19 actually exists let alone
harmful. Any form of virus or bacteria or any elements that can
cause sickness and death in natural person must be presented and
backed with strong evidence. Mere statements and labeling of a
"virus" causing sickness and death are not enough to declare
"pandemic."

The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief due to all the
findings, articles, pundits' opinions, images, labels, media
coverage, that have supported existence of coronavirus.

The Plaintiffs include TOKS, 5 WORLD MARKETS CORPORATION, WORLD
MARKETS TRANSFER AGENCY CORPORATION, GLOBAL PROSPERITY CORPORATION,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,
ORGANIZATION OF THE PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES (OPEC), TREASURY
DEPARMENT OF UNITED STATES, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF UNITED STATES,
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE,
ASSOCIATION OF TENNIS PROFESSIONALS, WOMEN'S TENNIS PROFESSIONALS,
INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FEDERATION, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NATIONAL
BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER,
CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, IDRIS ELBA, ACTOR, SINGER, PRODUCER,
SABRINA DHOWRE ELBA, FASHION MODEL, DAKPRESCOT, QUARTERBACK DALLAS
COWBOYS, BRIAN ALLEN, OFFENSIVE LINEMAN LOS ANGELES RAMS, MADONNA
LOUISE CICCONE, SINGER, SONGWRITER; DEMOCRATIC PARTY, REPUBLICAN
PARTY, ADESIJUOLA OGUNJOBI, and MEMBERS OF THE CLASS AND
SUBCLASSES.

The Plaintiffs also filed a number of motions, including a Motion
for Miscellaneous Relief, a Motion to Seal, and a Motion for
Litigation Funding Disbursement. As the Court dismissed Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, these Motions were also DENIED AS MOOT.

Mr. Ogunjobi now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Order
dated June 9, 2021, dismissing the amended complaint with
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Adesijuola Ogunjobi v. United
Nations, Case No. 21-1694, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 21, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADESIJUOLA OGUNJOBI, of 210 East 44th Street
Jacksonville, Florida, appears pro se.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Surgeons Sue Over Denied Benefits, Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph F. Tamburrino, M.D., as an authorized representative of his
patient L.K., and Taylor Theunissen, M.D., as an authorized
representative of his patient B.W., on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UnitedHealth Group Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United
Healthcare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service LLC, Oxford
Health Plans, LLC, and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-12766 (D.N.J., June 21, 2021), seeks an order
requiring United to repay all class members, with interest, for the
amount of out-of-network benefits denied; an order for United to
reprocess all wrongfully denied appeals in compliance with plan
terms and without the improper reductions; as well as equitable
payments, disbursements and expenses of this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Dr. Tamburrino specializes in plastic and reconstructive breast
surgery serving patients throughout the Greater Philadelphia area
at Tamburrino Plastic Surgery & Medspa. Dr. Theunissen is a plastic
surgeon serving Baton Rouge and surrounding Louisiana areas,
specializing on breast reconstruction for women.

Plaintiffs, as the authorized representatives of their
breast-cancer-survivor patients, claim that their patients were
denied benefits for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction when
performed by assistant surgeons or co-surgeons. Under the Women's
Health Cancer Rights Act of 1998, coverage is required to be
provided for breast reconstruction in a manner determined by the
member and her physician. They claim that United's procedure makes
it unreasonably difficult for patients to obtain benefits for a
particular type of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction known as
DIEP Flap when performed by plastic surgeons. United has allegedly
instituted a uniform claim processing and reimbursement policy that
denies coverage for DIEP flap microsurgery when the performing
surgeons work as either assistant surgeons or as co-surgeons. [BN]

Johnson is represented by:

      John W. Leardi, Esq.
      Nicole P. Allocca, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Rice, Esq.
      BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC
      212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Tel: (609) 799-5150
      Email: npallocca@buttacilaw.com
             jwleardi@buttacilaw.com

             - and -

      Leslie Howard, Esq.
      COHEN HOWARD, LLP
      766 Shrewsbury Ave., Suite 200
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
      Tel: (732) 747-5202
      Email: lhoward@cohenhoward.com


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lizama MMPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ABRAHAM LIZAMA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, and VICTORIA'S
SECRET DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 21SL-CC02221, was removed from the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00763 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), unjust enrichment,
negligence, and money had and received by charging a higher tax
rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on sales of products
through remote sales channels.

Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC is a retailer of apparel and
accessories for women, headquartered in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.

Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC is a retailer of apparel and
accessories for women, headquartered in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
         Colin Snider, Esq.
         BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
         One Metropolitan Square
         211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Telephone: (314) 259-2403
         Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
         E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com
                 colin.snider@bclplaw.com

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: SPCE) between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important July 27, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Virgin Galactic 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 Virgin Galactic class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2087.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for accounting purposes, Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required
to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin
Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, Virgin
Galactic improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were
outstanding at the time of the business confirmation of SCH, a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's
then-private predecessor; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Virgin Galactic class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2087.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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]

VIVINT SOLAR: Appeals Ruling in Dekker Suit to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GERRIE DEKKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-07918-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jun. 19,
2020, the lawsuit arises from certain misrepresented termination
fees imposed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs contend that these
termination fees constitute unlawful penalties that are void and
unenforceable under California Civil Code; unlawful and unfair
under California's Unfair Competition Law; and unconscionable under
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, at consumers' front doors and around
their kitchen tables, Vivint Solar sales representatives falsely
promise consumers they will only pay for the energy they use.
Touting the simplicity of a single, lower energy bill, sales
representatives boast about the ease of transferring the Solar
System if a consumer sells her home, which is also false. Further,
claiming the Solar System will actually increase property value,
and they assure consumers installation and customer service is
their forte. It most certainly is not, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated June 8,
2021, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-16027, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 16, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Vivint Solar
Holdings, Inc., Vivint Solar Provider, LLC and Vivint Solar, Inc.
Mediation Questionnaire was due June 23, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 15, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on August 16, 2021;

   -- Appellants Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Vivint Solar
Holdings, Inc., Vivint Solar Provider, LLC and Vivint Solar, Inc.
opening brief is due on September 23, 2021;

   -- Appellees Karen Barajas, Juan Bautista, Jae Chong, Gerrie
Dekker, Gennie Hilliard, Marci Hulsey, Cindy Piini, Marlene Rogers,
Phyllis Runyon and Daniel Thompson answering brief is due on
October 25, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS,
INC. VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC
are represented by:

          Bree Hann, Esq.
          George Clark Harris, Esq.
          Fred Norton, Esq.
          THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
          299 Third Street, Suite 106
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 906-4902

Plaintiffs-Appellees GERRIE DEKKER; KAREN BARAJAS, as executor of
the Estate of Thompson Bryson; MARLENE ROGERS; DANIEL THOMPSON; JAE
CHONG; MARCI HULSEY; CINDY PIINI; PHYLLIS RUNYON; GENNIE HILLIARD;
and JUAN BAUTISTA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, are represented by:

          Corey Benjamin Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 428
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 227-3003
          E-mail: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Noriega FEHA Suit Goes to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YVONEE RENEE NORIEGA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES
1 through 10, Case No. RG21099613, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on June 24, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04867 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and for wrongful
termination in violation of public policy.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores, and grocery stores from the United States,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Jason A. Geller, Esq.
         Juan C. Araneda, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 490-9000
         Facsimile: (415) 490-9001
         E-mail: jgeller@fisherphillips.com
                 jaraneda@fisherphillips.com

WELLNERGIZE CORP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellnergize
Corporation. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Wellnergize
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-05592 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).

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

Wellnergize Corporation doing business as Wellnergy Pets --
https://www.wellnergypets.com/ -- is a veterinarian-formulated pet
product wellness line created for your dogs and cats preventive,
supportive, and holistic care needs by Dr. Zonram Liao! Wellnergy
Pet products cover everything inside and out such as bellies,
bones, skin, coat, and teeth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHAT'S NEXT MEDIA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against What's Next Media And
Analytics LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. What's Next Media And
Analytics LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03624 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).

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

What's Next Data Analytics -- http://whatsnextdata.com/-- uses
proprietary data and methods to tackle difficult problems facing
execs and provider actionable insights on what's now, what's next,
and what they need to do about it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHIMSTAY INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whimstay, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Whimstay, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05599
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).

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

Whimstay -- https://whimstay.com/ -- partners with professional
property managers to provide travelers with great last-minute deals
in clean and safe vacation homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XTC CABARET: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY L. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XTC CABARET (DALLAS), INC. d/b/a XTC DALLAS;
ERIC S. LANGAN; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01482-K (N.D. Tex., June
24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful
taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.

The Plaintiff worked as a dancer/entertainer at the Defendants'
club located at 8550 N. Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, Texas between August
2016 and August 2019.

XTC Cabaret (Dallas), Inc. is an operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name XTC Dallas located at 8550 N.
Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
         Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
         ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         1105 Milford Street
         Houston, TX 77066
         Telephone: (713) 554-2377
         Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
         E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                 leigh@ellzeylaw.com

YERBA MATE: Certification of Wage and Hour Claims Held in Abeyance
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY TROYER, as an
individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v.
THE YERBA MATE CO., LLC, and GUAYAKI SUSTAINABLE RAINFOREST
PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-06065-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order that:

   -- A class of delivery driver hacedores like plaintiff and are
      classified as exempt from overtime under California's outside

      salesperson exemption from April 6, 2016 to July 21, 2020
are
      certified.

   -- Certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims is held
      in abeyance.
      
   -- Plaintiff Casey Troyer is appointed representative of the
      class.

   -- Yoon Law, APC is appointed counsel for the class.

   -- Within two weeks of this order, the parties must file a
      joint proposed class notice together with a plan of
      distribution and timeline for opt out. The proposed notice
      should conform to Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

In this wage-and-hour action, plaintiff alleges defendant
misclassified his position as exempt from California's general
overtime and meal and rest break rules under the outside
salesperson exemption. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of former
and current employees in the same position classified as exempt
outside salespersons.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHyPfh at no extra charge.[CC]

YERBAE LLC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yerbae, LLC. The case
is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Yerbae, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05609
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021).

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

Yerbae -- https://yerbae.com/ -- is a sparkling water technology
Company..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZALE DELAWARE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZALE DELAWARE, INC. d/b/a ZALES, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-04676-AGT (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2021), is brought to secure
redress against the Defendants for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, https://www.zales.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered and in conjunction with
its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's website is not
fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant's website provides consumers with access to an
extensive selection of fine jewelry, popular timepieces, and
accessories that are available online and in retail stores for
purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: Thiago@whilshirelawfirm.com
                 Jamine@wilshirelawfirm.com


ZEDAN RACING: Dropped From Horseplayers' Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
T. D. Thornton, writing for Thoroughbred Daily News, reports that
Zedan Racing Stables, Inc., the owner of GI Kentucky Derby winner
Medina Spirit (Protonico), has been voluntary dismissed from a
class-action federal lawsuit initiated by a group of horseplayers
who want to collect damages from a purported years-long pattern of
racketeering activity related to the alleged "doping" of
Thoroughbreds by trainer Bob Baffert.

Zedan Racing's founder is Amr Zedan. The dismissal "without
prejudice" was filed by the plaintiffs June 23.

Baffert, plus his incorporated racing stable, now remain as the
only defendants in the suit, which was filed May 13 in United
States District Court (Central District of California). Baffert has
not yet responded in court to the complaint.

The suit, led by Michael Beychok, the winner of the 2012 National
Horseplayers Championship, was filed four days after Baffert's
disclosure that Medina Spirit had tested positive for betamethasone
after winning the Derby.

Baffert's revelation was later confirmed by split-sample testing at
two different labs approved by the Kentucky Horse Racing
Commission, but no ruling has yet been issued over those findings.

The betamethasone finding in the Derby was the fifth positive test
in a Baffert trainee for a regulated but prohibited race-day drug
within the past year (two others were for lidocaine, one was for
dextrorphan, and another also for betamethasone). It was the third
during that time frame to occur in a Grade I stakes.

Simultaneously, Baffert has been embroiled in a long and
complicated court and racing commission battle in California over
whether to disqualify 2018 Triple Crown winner Justify from that
year's GI Santa Anita Derby because of a scopolamine finding.

Back in 2013, after a cluster of seven sudden horse deaths in
Baffert's Hollywood Park barn, the California Horse Racing Board
(CHRB) issued a report that stated that although "the blanket
prescribing of thyroxine to all horses in Baffert's barn does
appear unusual" the fatalities remained "unexplained [and] there is
no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated
or any illicit activity played a part." [GN]


ZUFFA LLC: UFC Veterans File Antitrust Class Action 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:

1. locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts which, the
fighters say, prevents them from competing elsewhere;

2. 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

3. 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.

BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000/Fax: (215) 875-4604
http://www.bergermontague.com[GN]

[*] Experts Explain Class Action Hurdles in India
-------------------------------------------------
Manjeet Kripalani and Kartik Ashta at The Indian Express report
that the families of 71 people who were killed after Cyclone
Tauktae battered ONGC's barge vessels off Bombay High in May have
received compensation up to Rs 2 lakh from ONGC, and between Rs 35
lakh and Rs 75 lakh from Afcons, which was assigned the project
contract. Three directors of ONGC have been suspended, and NHRC has
issued notices to the Petroleum Ministry, ONGC, and the Coast
Guard. A surviving engineer has filed a case of criminal negligence
against the deceased captain of barge P-305, which sank. Neither
ONGC nor Afcons have taken responsibility for the loss of lives.

For over 35 years, India's laws for negligence and liability have
not been strengthened, in order to force safety and prevention
measures, and to minimise such incidents.

In the ONGC matter, there is little the families can do in terms of
personal injury suits, or class action suits. Both these legal
options are weak in India, and not considered a worthwhile
exercise.

However, they are necessary if India is to improve its ease of
doing business rankings, especially in disaster prevention and risk
of life.

How can such incidents be made preventable, and in the eventuality
of damage and death, how can the parties be made responsible, with
adequate damages paid?

How can India move in the direction of such accountability, which
is taken seriously in developed economies, and which makes them
better abodes for employment and business?

This explainer looks at class action suits, a tool extensively used
in the US where individuals or small communities, aggrieved by the
actions of a large entity, come together to exercise legal options
collectively.

THE EXPERTS
Manjeet Kripalani is Executive Director, and Kartik Ashta is
Researcher, International Law Studies, Gateway House: Indian
Council on Global Relations, Mumbai

What are class action suits?
A class action suit is a legal action or claim that allows one or
many plaintiffs to file and appear for a group of people with
similar interests. Such a group forms a "class".

A class action suit derives from representative litigation, to
ensure justice to the ordinary individual against a powerful
adversary.

While class action suits have a history dating back to the 18th
century, these were formally incorporated into law in the United
States in 1938 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Over the
years, class action has become so successful at curbing negligence,
that it is now a part of US corporate and consumer laws,
environmental litigation, etc.

The ubiquity of representative litigation in the US has given rise
to a class of lawyers called "ambulance chasers" — those who
solicit for clients at an accident or disaster site, largely for
personal injury cases. They get financial compensation for their
clients from the perpetrator, a percentage of which they keep.
While such soliciting violates professional legal conduct in the
US, it has helped hold people and corporations accountable.

The most successful class action suits in the US are the $206
billion settlement made by four American tobacco companies to cover
medical costs for smoking-related illnesses; the $20 billion BP
Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2016, which caused environmental
damage; and the $7.2 billion settlement made by Visa and MasterCard
to retailers who claimed they had overpaid credit and debit card
fees to the card companies.

In an incident made into a film, Erin Brockovich, Pacific Gas &
Electric was ordered to pay $333 million for knowingly discharging
harmful chemicals in surrounding water bodies in California that
led to bodily harm.

Is there an Indian equivalent of US class action suits?
The most actionable suit was the Bhopal gas leak from the Union
Carbide factory in 1984, where more than 3,700 people died. Three
class action suits were filed in the US, which dismissed all claims
for environmental clean-up, personal injuries, and medical
compensation. In India, the central government filed a case on
behalf of the persons who had been injured as a result of the gas
leak.

Eventually, Union Carbide was asked to pay $470 million in
compensation, one-seventh of the claim asked for. This also ended
all civil and criminal complaints. The water is still contaminated,
people still haven't recovered from their injuries, and multiple
generations suffer the effects.

During the 2009 Satyam Computers scandal, there was fraud and
misrepresentation to the stock exchanges, regulator, and investors.
A class action suit was filed, but because India didn't have an
appropriate law, 300,000 Indian investors were deprived of damages
while Satyam's US investors were made whole. The amendment of
Section 245 of the Companies Act, as mentioned below, was a
consequence of this case.

In 2015, the Government of India filed a case on behalf of
consumers in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
against Nestle after the Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India found higher than permissible levels of lead in instant
noodles. The case is still pending.

India now has legal provisions for filing class action suits, but
under four laws:

Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to representative
suits, which is the closest to a classic class action suit in a
civil context in India. It does not cover criminal proceedings.

Section 245 of the Companies Act allows members or depositors of a
company to initiate proceedings against the directors of the
company in specific instances. There are threshold limits,
requiring a minimum number of people or holders of issued share
capital before such a suit can proceed. This type of suit is filed
in the National Company Law Tribunal. Currently, no class action
matters have been filed under this provision.

The Competition Act under Section 53(N) allows a group of aggrieved
persons to appear at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in
issues of anti-competitive practices.

The Supreme Court has held that in certain complaints under the
Consumer Protection Act, they can be considered as class action
suits. (Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava and Ors v Dwarkadhis Project
Pvt Ltd and Ors)

Is a class action suit comparable with public interest litigation?
For filing a public interest litigation (Article 32 or Article 226
of the Constitution), the plaintiff need not have a personal
interest or claim in the matter. The PIL must serve a matter of
public interest. A crucial difference is that unlike a class action
suit, a PIL cannot be filed against a private party.



What has deterred the development of a mature body of class action
suits in India?

There are several hurdles, which are not necessarily regulatory in
nature.

Underdeveloped system of torts: Tort law has not developed
sufficiently in India for a number of reasons, primarily due to the
high cost and time-consuming nature of litigation, especially in
cases concerning the law of torts. As civil breaches, litigants
find it too expensive and complicated, and therefore do not pursue
such cases.

Lack of contingency fees: The rules of the Bar Council of India do
not allow lawyers to charge contingency fees, i.e., a percentage of
the damages claimants receive if they win a case. This
disincentivises lawyers from appearing in time-consuming cases that
class action suits inevitably are. Revisiting this rule in specific
cases may be a good first step in bringing class action suits into
the mainstream.

Third-party financing mechanisms for litigants: Since litigation
costs are high, class action suits can be made easier by allowing
external parties to fund or sponsor the cost of litigation. Some
states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka
have made changes in the Civil Procedure Code to allow this. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA, States Settle Suit Over Imported Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters.com, reports that The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday settled a lawsuit
in San Francisco federal court by a dozen states and public health
groups over asbestos oversight by agreeing to close "loopholes"
that have allowed the substance to enter the country unrecorded as
part of imported products.

Under the proposed settlement deal, which is subject to the court's
approval, the EPA will issue within 18 months a rule under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will require companies,
for the first time, to tell the agency when they import certain
articles that contain the toxic substance. The data will be used to
assess the risks asbestos poses to public health.

"The long-time failure of the EPA to regulate asbestos is an
environmental injustice and public health tragedy," said California
Attorney General Rob Bonta. California, with Massachussetts,
co-leads the coalition of a dozen states who sued the EPA in 2019.

EPA spokesperson Dominique Joseph did not immediately provide a
comment.

The states, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and other
groups sued President Donald Trump's EPA in 2019 after the agency
denied their separate petitions urging it to adopt regulation to
shed light on the quantity of asbestos imported as part of certain
products.

Federal law allows limited uses of asbestos, a carcinogen once used
widely in construction materials. Companies that import articles
containing asbestos are not required to disclose to the EPA that
they have imported the toxic substance.

Congress in 2016 amended the TSCA to create a process for further
regulating the substance, including by giving the EPA hard
deadlines to evaluate and mitigate the safety risks of asbestos and
other chemicals.

In their complaints, the states and the public health groups
claimed that absent data on asbestos imported in goods like brake
linings and knitted fabric, the EPA was violating its obligations
under the TSCA to protect human health from the dangers of the
chemical. Asbestos can be woven into textile to make it fireproof.

In a December decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed,
ruling that reporting exceptions for companies importing
asbestos-containing materials amounted to "significant" loopholes.
The judge directed the agency to take the necessary steps to
collect the missing information.

In February the agency urged Chen to modify his judgment by
scrapping his ruling's instructions. The EPA argued that he had
exceeded remedies at his disposal under the Administrative
Procedure Act.

The case is State of California et al v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency et al, U.S. District Court for the
California Northern District, No. 3:19-cv-03807.

For State of California et al: David Zonana with the California
Department of Justice

For United States Environmental Protection Agency et al: Debra
Carfora with the U.S. Department of Justice


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark & Daniels Settles Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer writing for Mesothelioma.net, reports that four
days after a California jury began hearing how a retired
schoolteacher's malignant mesothelioma had been caused by asbestos
hidden in body powders she'd used for decades, the talc company
responsible for the asbestos offered her a settlement and the case
came to a close. Though the amount agreed to remains confidential,
the agreement came days after a jury ordered the same defendant to
pay $4.8 million to another California asbestos victim.

In testimony provided prior to trial, Linda Zimmerman explained
that she'd been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2018, and
that right up until her diagnosis she was still using Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder as she had since 1954. She also told of using
Jean Naté powder from 1956 to 1992, Chanel No. 5 powder from 1964
to 2009, and Avon Unforgettable powder from 1964 to the 1980s. All
of those brands had purchased talc from Whittaker Clark & Daniels,
Inc., the supplier accused of selling asbestos-contaminated
material.

In response to Zimmerman's claims, Whittaker's attorneys argued
that her exposure had come from the clothing worn by her stepfather
– who had worked at an asbestos products factory – and her
sons, who had both worked as brake mechanics. These claims were
denied by Zimmerman's attorney, who explained that the victim's
stepfather had entered their home through the basement each
evening, showering and changing clothes before reuniting with the
family.

Prior to the settlement being reached, the jury was told how
varieties of asbestos lie in close proximity to talc and is
unintentionally mined along with the talc that is purposely being
removed from the ground. Though harmless in nature, those asbestos
varieties change shapes in the blending process to the types of
fibers that cause the rare asbestos-related cancer.

Zimmerman's attorney also explained that after a 1971 news report
about asbestos being present in cosmetic talc, a consultant
suggested that the company shield itself against future
mesothelioma liability and the risk of asbestos being detected in
its product by changing the ratio of asbestos-contaminated talc in
their product to levels that would not be picked up by monitoring
equipment. The jury also heard the details of Mrs. Zimmerman's
treatment and suffering since her diagnosis.  A settlement offer
that was acceptable to the victim was made shortly after this
testimony was heard by the jury.


                            *********

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 ***