/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210805.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 150

                            Headlines

360 DIGITECH: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: 1,274 Class Suits Filed Over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Suit in Ontario Underway
3M COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
3M COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in 3M Scotchgard Related Suit

3M COMPANY: Fernandez Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Final Fairness Hearing for Settlement Set for September
3M COMPANY: Firefighter's Class Certification Bid Briefing Complete
3M COMPANY: Frazier Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faces Faille Suit Over 5.93% Drop of Stock Price
AEP TRANSMISSION: Bid to Nix Ohio House Bill 6 Related Suit Pending
ALCON VISION: Taylor BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ALIBABA GROUP: Ct. Ruling on Lead Plaintiff Bids in NY Suit Pending
ALICE DRY: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Cano Suit Alleges

ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of Putative Class Suit Under Appeal
ALLIANT CAPITAL: Henry FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS: Must Face Pyramid Scheme Class Action
ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY: Gutierrez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Settlement in iPhone Related Suit Granted Final Approval

ARCHER DANIELS: Judge Approves $45MM Class Action Settlement
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price Rigged Related Suits Underway
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Settlements in Price Fixing Suits Approved
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gentilcore Says
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES: Victims of Phishing Mull Class Action

BASALITE BUILDING: Faces Brennan Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
C & P TOWING: Corneli Seeks to Recoup Damages for Unpaid Wages

CANADA: Duplessis Orphans Mull Class Action Over Grave Sites
CARLOTZ INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CENTO FINE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Dismiss Mattera Class Suit Pending
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Soileau Suit Under Appeal

CLEARBALANCE: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Breach Class Action
COINBASE GLOBAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CONNECTICUT: Hartford Attorneys Discuss Hepatitis C Class Actions
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Getaw Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Cheslow Sues Over Insurance Rate Increases

COOLING & WINTER: Lalloo Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CORMEDIX INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Wants 2nd Circuit to Toss ERISA Class Action
D F STAUFFER: Faces Rudy Suit Over Deceptive Product Labeling
DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS: Estevez Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, Clinger Says
EXACT SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Flannery Class Action Pending
FCA US: White Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Door Locks
FERRARA CANDY: Cashman Sues Over Mislabeled Cookies' Fudge and Mint
FOREFRONT DERMATOLOGY: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Claims

GALLATIAN CHICKEN: Lewis Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Nix Houston Putative Class Suit Pending
GRAHAM PACKAGING: Collects Employees' Biometrics, Morales Claims
GRAND CARIBBEAN: Barney TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GREENWAY HOME: Wright Suit to Recover Minimum Pay, Overtime Wages

GREGORYS COFFEE: Baristas' Suit Assert Fair Workweek Law Violations
GUS'S MARKET: Notice to Defendant Sent in Mejia Class Suit
HANWHA TECHWI: Ill. Judge Tosses Biometric Privacy Class Action
HDFC BANK: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Class Suit Pending
JAYBIRD SENIOR: Faces Bracher Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodine Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cohen Sues Over Asbestos Exposure From Cosmetics
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Product Liability Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Causes Cancer, Dominguez Says
JONES LANG: Znaczko Hits Discrimination, Seeks Damages

KELLOGG'S CO: Sept. 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
L'OREAL USA: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
LAKE CITY: Faces Green FDCPA Suit in Southern District of Texas
LEMONADE INC: Scott+Scott Announces Privacy Class Action
MAGNUM OPUS: Gerstman Sues Over Defective Retrofitted Motorcycles

MARINE SPILL: Thieroff Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
MARKPOL DISTRIBUTORS: Collects Staff's Biometrics, Krzak Claims
MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Physicians Healthsource Suit
MEDFORD, MA: Challenges Homelessness Class Action Lawsuit
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces Girgis FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

MERRICKDAMON REAL: Teblum Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
METRO SPEEDGEAR: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccesible Website
MIDLAND CREDIT: Uses Third Party to Send Debt Letters, Ceron Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hagens Berman Files Amended Complaint
NCAA: Thomas Seeks Damages Over Football-Related Health Issues

NEWEGG INC: Shaw Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
NIAGARA BOTTLING: Duchimaza Sues Over Mislabeled Recyclable Bottles
NORMAN BARWIN: Settles Misconduct Class Action for $13.375 Million
OATLY GROUP: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline

OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Tesetaxel Related Suit Pending
OSAKA COURT: Guarcax Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
POLARIS INC: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling in Johannessohn Appeal

POLARIS INC: Dismissal of Claims in Class Suit Under Appeal
POLARIS INC: Dismissal of Guzman, Albright Suit Under Appeal
POLARIS INC: Faces Hellman Putative Class Suit in California
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Ferry Suit Over Vehicle Parts Warranty
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wants Charcoal Toothpaste Class Action Nixed

REPAIR FLORIDA: Faces Botha Suit Over Repairmen's Unpaid Overtime
RHMT LLC: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RIKO WIEMER: Pfau Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Sanchez Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
SIRIUS XM: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Class Action Stayed

SMARTYPANTS INC: Foster Sues Over Multivitamins' Deceptive Label
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Borges Sues Over Telephonic Sales Calls
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Suit Dismissed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Texas Securities Suit Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Ongoing in Boeing MAX Defect Suit

SPROUT SOCIAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Orbegoso Claims
STABLE ROAD: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STABLE ROAD: Thornton Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STABLE ROAD: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
SUNRISE GROUPS: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Illegal Deductions

TENCHA LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TENNESSEE: Gov. Has Yet to Respond to Unemployment Benefits Suit
THAMESLINK RAILWAY: Faces Unfair Pricing Suit  From Campaigners
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bazzano Sues Over Deceptive Product Representations
U & U LLC: Underpays Fast Food Employees, Morgan Suit Claims

UNITED PARCEL: John Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
UNITED STATES: USCIS Settles Class Action Over OPT Delays
WEINGARTEN REALTY: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Coffman Alleges
[*] Securities Action Filings Down in First Half of 2020

                            *********

360 DIGITECH: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 29 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360
DigiTech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) between April 30, 2020
and July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc., you
may, no later than September 13, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADRs of 360 DigiTech, Inc.

The filed 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 failed to disclose to investors that:

the Company had been collecting personal information in violation
of relevant PRC laws and regulations;

accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and

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.

On July 8, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported chatter on social media
that the Company's core product offering, the 360 IOU app, has been
removed from app stores.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.12, or 21%, to
close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

Subsequently, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360
DigiTech confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android
app store and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the
Company had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the
whole process."

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

3M COMPANY: 1,274 Class Suits Filed Over Aqueous Film Forming Foam
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that as of June 30, 2021, there were 1,274
cases in the MDL, 933 of which name 3M as a defendant, related to
Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).

3M manufactured and marketed AFFF for use in firefighting at
airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2002.

As of June 30, 2021, 1,274 lawsuits (including 26 putative class
actions) alleging injuries or damages by AFFF use have been filed
against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and
federal courts.

A vast majority of these pending cases are in a federal
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) court in South Carolina. Additional
AFFF cases continue to be filed in or transferred to the MDL. The
Company also continues to defend certain AFFF cases that remain in
state court and be in discussions with pre-suit claimants for
possible resolutions where appropriate.

In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) granted motions to transfer and consolidate all
AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding
to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

The parties in the MDL are currently in the process of conducting
discovery.

An initial pool of ten water supplier cases was selected in
February 2021 for case-specific fact discovery as potential
bellwether cases.

After completion of such discovery, the parties and the MDL court
will select a smaller set of these cases for expert discovery and
to be tried as bellwethers.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Suit in Ontario Underway
------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend itself
against a putative class action related to the company's Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system, pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular,
and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections
that the representative plaintiff claims was due to the use of the
Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system.

The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive
damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those
asserted in the MDL.

No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger litigation
because the Company believes that any such liability is not
probable and reasonably estimable at this time.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss Heavy & General
Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund consolidated putative class
action suit, is pending.

In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and former
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with
PFAS, and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants. In October 2019, the
court consolidated the securities class actions and appointed a
group of lead plaintiffs.

In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In August
2020, the court denied the motion to transfer venue, and in
September 2020, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In November 2020, the federal Court of Appeals granted 3M's
petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the New Jersey federal
court to transfer the action to the Minnesota federal court. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in January 2021;
that motion was argued in July 2021.

The suit is in the early stages of litigation.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Court Narrows Claims in 3M Scotchgard Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, partially denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss, by granting the motions to dismiss the negligence claim
only insofar as the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries,
as opposed to property damage.

In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
against 3M and Wolverine World Wide.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege
Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that
chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and
drinking water sources after disposal.

In June 2021, the court partially denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss, by granting the motions to dismiss the negligence claim
only insofar as the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries,
as opposed to property damage. The case remains in early stages of
litigation.

The court has set a trial date in April 2022.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Fernandez Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS FERNANDEZ, 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-02348-RMG (D.S.C., July 29, 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, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

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

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

3M COMPANY: Final Fairness Hearing for Settlement Set for September
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the final fairness hearing for the
settlement in the drinking water contaminated suit is scheduled for
September 2021.

3M is a defendant, together with Georgia-Pacific as co-defendant,
in a putative class action in federal court in Michigan brought by
residents of Parchment, who allege that the municipal drinking
water was contaminated from waste generated by a paper mill owned
by Georgia-Pacific's corporate predecessor. The defendants' motion
to dismiss certain claims in the complaint was denied in January
2021.

A trial date is set for January 2022.

The parties have engaged in mediation and in April 2021 reached a
preliminary settlement agreement, subject to court approval, under
which 3M and Georgia-Pacific would jointly pay an amount and be
released from plaintiffs' putative class action claims. 3M's
portion is not considered material.

The final fairness hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
September 2021. Separately, as a result of discussions among
Georgia-Pacific, 3M and municipalities near Parchment,
Georgia-Pacific and 3M contributed to a fund in November 2020 to
provide expanded municipal water service in the area.

These municipalities released 3M from claims relating to or arising
out of the extension of municipal water or the alleged PFAS
contamination in the area of that extension.

3M's portion relative to the preliminary agreement and contribution
above was not material.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Firefighter's Class Certification Bid Briefing Complete
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that briefing on plaintiff's class
certification motion is complete.

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and
Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the
named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals
through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a
putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their blood.

The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy
and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS.

3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February
2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion to transfer
the case to the AFFF MDL.

Briefing on plaintiff's class certification motion is complete.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Frazier Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE FRAZIER, 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-02332-RMG (D.S.C., July 28, 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 says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.

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

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

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 27
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI)
resulting from allegations that Activision Blizzard may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Activision Blizzard securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2129.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 20, 2021, California's Department of
Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision
Blizzard, claiming that women who work for Activision Blizzard are
subjected to "constant sexual harassment," while Activision
Blizzard's top executives and human resources personnel knew about
the harassment and not only failed to prevent it, but retaliated
against women who complained. The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Equal Pay Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

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, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. 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.

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

Contacts:
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]

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faces Faille Suit Over 5.93% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHARLES FAILLE JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP. f/k/a DFB
HEALTHCARE ACQUISITIONS CORP., LUKE MCGEE, STEPHEN P. GRIGGS, GREGG
HOLST, and JASON CLEMENS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03382 (E.D.
Pa., July 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding AdaptHealth's business,
operations, and compliance policies with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in order to trade AdaptHealth securities at
artificially inflated prices between November 11, 2019 and July 16,
2021. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had
misrepresented its organic growth trajectory by retroactively
inflating past organic growth numbers without disclosing the
changes; (ii) accordingly, the company had materially overstated
its financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times, alleges the suit.

When the truth emerged, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per
share, or 5.93%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021.

AdaptHealth Corp., formerly known as DFB Healthcare Acquisitions
Corp., is a provider of home healthcare equipment, medical
supplies, and home and related services, with principal executive
offices located at 220 West Germantown Pike, Suite 250, Plymouth
Meeting, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Gonen Haklay, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
         Jenkintown, PA 19046
         Telephone: (215) 600-2817
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
                 ghaklay@rosenlegal.com

                - and –

         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

                - and –

         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
         211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
         Atlanta, GA 30346
         Telephone: (770) 392-0090
         Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
         E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

AEP TRANSMISSION: Bid to Nix Ohio House Bill 6 Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AEP Transmission Company, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend the putative class action suit initiated by its
shareholder, in connection to public corruption with respect to the
passage of HB 6.

In August 2020, an AEP shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against AEP and certain of its officers for
alleged violations of securities laws.

The amended complaint alleges misrepresentations or omissions by
AEP regarding: (a) its alleged participation in or connection to
public corruption with respect to the passage of HB 6 and (b) its
regulatory, legislative, political contribution, 501(c)(4)
organization contribution and lobbying activities in Ohio.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, among other forms of relief.


On May 10, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
securities litigation for failure to state a claim, and under the
Court's briefing schedule the motion will be fully briefed by July
26, 2021.

AEP Transmission said, "The company will continue to defend against
the claims. Management is unable to determine a range of potential
losses that is reasonably possible of occurring."

AEP Transmission Company, LLC offers utility services. The Company
supplies electricity and natural gas. AEP Transmission serves
customers in the United States.


ALCON VISION: Taylor BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXYS TAYLOR and AMERICA HAILESELASSIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ALCON VISION, LLC, Case No. 2021CH02967, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on July 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04019 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting,
capturing, and using facial biometrics.

Alcon Vision, LLC is an eye care device company with its principal
place of business in Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
         Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq.
         Brian C. Miller, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 456-8400
         Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
         E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                 fordycet@gtlaw.com
                 millerb@gtlaw.com

ALIBABA GROUP: Ct. Ruling on Lead Plaintiff Bids in NY Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the court in the
consolidated putative securities class action suit filed before the
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York has not yet ruled on the Lead Plaintiff motions.

In November and December 2020, the company and certain of its
officers and directors were named defendants in two putative
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the
suspension of Ant Group's planned initial public offering,
captioned Laura Ciccarello v. Alibaba Group et al., No.
1:20-cv-09568  and Robert Romnek v. Alibaba Group et al., No.
1:20-cv-10267 . Both lawsuits assert claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

In January 2021,the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named defendants in a putative securities class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York concerning certain antitrust
developments, captioned Elissa Hess v. Alibaba Group et al., No.
1:21-cv-00136. The complaint in the Hess Action, which also
includes certain allegations about the suspension of Ant Group's
planned initial public offering, asserts claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

On January 12, 2021, four plaintiff groups filed Motions to
Consolidate and Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), seeking
consolidation of the Ciccarello, Romnek, and Hess Actions and
appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel under the PSLRA. On
April 20, 2021, the Court consolidated the three actions. The
Court's ruling on the Lead Plaintiff motions is currently pending.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates
as an online and mobile commerce company in the People's Republic
of China and internationally. The company operates in four
segments: Core Commerce, Cloud Computing, Digital Media and
Entertainment, and Innovation Initiatives and Others. The company
was founded in 1999 and is based in Hangzhou, the People's Republic
of China.


ALICE DRY: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Cano Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER CANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALICE DRY CLEANERS CORP. (D/B/A ALICE DRY
CLEANERS), YNGWEN KANG, and DONG HYUN PARK AKA RAFAEL, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06461 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages at required rate, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to
timely pay wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an ironer at Alice
Dry Cleaners in New York from May 2019 until on or about April 20,
2021.

Alice Dry Cleaners Corp. is an owner and operator of a dry cleaner
under the name Alice Dry Cleaners located at 74 2nd Ave. #1, New
York. [BN]

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

ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of Putative Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the dismissal of the
consolidated putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, is pending.

In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:19-cv-00624, respectively.

In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in July 2019 naming one additional officer of the Company
and one former officer of the Company as defendants.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review and consideration
of that submission.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.

On February 26, 2021, the EDNY District Court entered a final
judgment and order dismissing the action in its entirety.

On March 26, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal captioned
In re Alkermes Public Limited Co. Securities Litig., No. 21-801,
appealing the Final Judgment and Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 10, 2021, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed its opening
brief, and on July 15, 2021, the defendants-appellees filed their
answering brief.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLIANT CAPITAL: Henry FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ronald Henry, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alliant Capital Management, LLC, Case
No. GD-21-007228 was removed from the ALLEGHENY COUNTY to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 2,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01019-MRH to the
proceeding.

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

Alliant Capital Management -- https://alliantcapital.net/ -- is a
professional debt collection agency that provides recovery services
for creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (412) 223-5740
          Fax: (412) 626-7101
          Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Phone: (904) 527-1172
          Fax: (904) 683-7353
          Email: lburnette@messerstrickler.com


AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS: Must Face Pyramid Scheme Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
investors who sign up with American Communications Network must
sign an arbitration agreement, but the Second Circuit ruled on July
28 that such covenants mean nothing for individuals like Donald
Trump and his adult children who were paid millions to make ACN
look credible.

The decision is a boon to the federal class action that says the
Trumps perpetuated a yearslong fraud by promoting the ACN pyramid
scheme on "The Apprentice" and at business conventions.

As the Trumps did not sign the arbitration contracts given to
investors, theirs was a steep climb to establish coverage from the
contract. Writing for a three-judge panel on July 28, U.S. Circuit
Judge Robert D. Sack said they didn't make it.

"There was no corporate relationship between the defendants and ACN
of which the plaintiffs had knowledge, the defendants do not own or
control ACN, and the defendants are not named in the IBO agreements
between ACN and the plaintiffs," the 43-page opinion states.

Trump and three of his children -- Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and
Ivanka Trump -- appeared from 2005 to 2015 in promotional
television ads, at events and in magazines touting American
Communications Network, a telecommunications company that offers
business seminars and encourages enrollees to bring in new
recruits.

In a 2018 federal class action, four investors who said they lost
hundreds or thousands of dollars investing with ACN sought damages
from the then-first family and their corporate entity, the Trump
Organization, saying they concealed that ACN paid them handsomely
for their endorsements.

After U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield denied a motion from the
Trumps to compel arbitration, the Second Circuit affirmed on July
28.

A representative for ACN told Courthouse News on July 28 the
company "categorically denies the allegations made in the lawsuit
against it and its business."

"It is unfortunate that ACN's name and business have been impugned
in connection with this politically-motivated and funded lawsuit,"
a representative for the company said, reiterating that ACN is not
a party to the underlying lawsuit.

In court filings, Consovoy McCarthy attorney Thomas R. McCarthy had
argued for the Trumps that they should benefit from ACN's
arbitration agreement with plaintiffs since they were clearly
intertwined.

The Second Circuit rejected that equitable-estoppel argument,
however, finding the Trumps failed to establish that the
relationship was close "such that it can reasonably be inferred
that the signatories had knowledge of, and consented to, the
extension of their agreement to arbitrate to the non-signatories."

Sack, a Clinton appointee, was joined in the decision by
Obama-appointed U.S. Circuit Judges Denny Chin and Raymond Lohier.

Roberta "Robbie" Kaplan, the New York City-based attorney
representing the class, applauded the ruling.

"We are very pleased that the Second Circuit has affirmed Judge
Schofield's decisions and are excited to resume discovery in this
important case about a years-long consumer fraud on hard working
Americans perpetrated by Donald Trump and three of his adult
children," Kaplan saod in a statement on July 28.

Kaplan, a partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink, noted that they look
forward to receiving the documents sought by pending subpoenas, as
well as tapes from "Celebrity Apprentice" where ACN promotion work
occurs.

"And we similarly intend to press the Trumps to complete their
document production so that we can begin taking depositions as soon
as possible," the attorney added.

Judge Schofield advanced fraud, false advertising and unfair
competition claims against the Trumps in July 2019, but also
rejected racketeering charges that could have put the family on the
hook for treble damages.

In refusing to dismiss the class's state-law claims for fraud,
unfair competition and deceptive trade practice, Schofield noted
that the case likely involves more than one hundred plaintiffs and
$5 million in damages.

According to the complaint, ACN charged investors $499 to register
with the promise that they can earn commissions from selling
products to customers at small "motivational rallies." The
enterprise works by having recruits identify leads by hosting small
events for family and friends, and "small motivational rallies"
where a DVD is shown to encourage investment. Multiple versions of
the DVD included Donald Trump's personal endorsement.

Investors allegedly made back less than 10% of their investments.

As Trump closed in on the White House in 2015, however, as the
Republican frontrunner, he claimed to "know nothing about the
company" and denied he was paid for his endorsements. But the
complaint noted that ties between ACN and the Trumps remained. In
2017, ACN sponsored a hole at the Eric Trump Foundation's annual
golf tournament, Curetivity, and held a celebrity golf tournament
of its own at Trump National Golf Club in Moorseville.

Representatives for the Trumps and ACN did not immediately respond
to requests for comment on July 28.

Earlier in July, the Manhattan district attorney's ongoing probe of
the Trump Organization resulted in long-expected tax fraud charges
against the company and its chief financial officer, Allen
Weisselberg. [GN]


ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY: Gutierrez Labor Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARTHUR GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ANNING-JOHNSON COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, Case No. 21STCV22570, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06117 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 minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
expenses, and failure to pay wages of terminated employees.

Anning-Johnson Company is a specialty construction company based in
Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jordon R. Ferguson, Esq.
         LOCKE LORD LLP
         300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 485-1500
         Facsimile: (213) 485-1200
         E-mail: Jordon.ferguson@lockelord.com

APPLE INC: Settlement in iPhone Related Suit Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 26, 2021, that the Northern California District Court
granted final approval of the Multidistrict Litigation settlement,
in the consolidated class action suit related to the Company's
performance management feature used in its iPhone operating
systems, introduced to certain iPhones in iOS updates 10.2.1 and
11.2

On April 5, 2018, several U.S. federal actions alleging violation
of consumer protection laws, fraud, computer intrusion and other
causes of action related to the Company's performance management
feature used in its iPhone operating systems, introduced to certain
iPhones in iOS updates 10.2.1 and 11.2, were consolidated through a
Multidistrict Litigation process into a single action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On February 28, 2020, the parties in the Multidistrict Litigation
reached a settlement to resolve the U.S. federal and California
state class actions.

On March 18, 2021, the Northern California District Court granted
final approval of the Multidistrict Litigation settlement, which
will result in an aggregate payment of $310 million to settle all
claims.

The Company continues to believe that its iPhones were not
defective, that the performance management feature introduced with
iOS updates 10.2.1 and 11.2 was intended to, and did, improve
customers' user experience, and that the Company did not make any
misleading statements or fail to disclose any material
information.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services. The company is based in Cupertino, California.


ARCHER DANIELS: Judge Approves $45MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that antitrust
litigation against the country's top peanut shelling companies has
concluded after a federal judge in Virginia approved a $45 million
settlement between an Archer Daniels Midland Co. subsidiary and the
farmers leading the class action.

Judge Raymond A. Jackson signed off late on July 27 on the
agreement with ADM unit Golden Peanut Co., nearly four months after
giving his blessing to a $50 million deal letting Birdsong Corp.
out of the case and a $7.75 million settlement with an Olam
International Ltd. affiliate.

"Adjudication of plaintiffs' claims has already proven costly," and
"future appeals of any jury outcome are not only possible, but
likely given the amount of money at stake," Jackson wrote. "Any
further litigation of this case would be lengthy, complex, and
expensive, making settlement favorable to the class."

The ruling came one day after a final fairness hearing July 26, at
which the judge indicated he would approve the deal and take "under
advisement" a bid by class counsel for fees totaling one-third of
the $102.75 million settlement fund.

Jackson, who awarded $1.9 million in expenses to class counsel in
April, didn't rule on the fee request in his order on July 27.

The lawsuit, filed in 2019, accuses the peanut shellers of
doctoring inventory numbers "to create the false impression of an
oversupplied market," then offering artificially low prices that
forced small growers to borrow ruinously against their farm
equity.

Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, let the case advance in May 2020, saying three
allegations make collusion the most plausible explanation for the
prices: a clear motive to conspire, simultaneous price changes, and
efforts to conceal "actual peanut inventory." He certified the suit
as a class action in December.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC
are co-lead counsel for the farmers, who are also represented by
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff PC and liaison counsel Durrette, Arkema,
Gerson & Gill PC.

Golden Peanut is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP and
McGuireWoods LLP. Birdsong is represented by Kaufman & Canoles PC.
Olam is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP and Stoel Rives LLP.

The case is In re Peanut Farmers Antitrust Litig., E.D. Va., No.
19-cv-463, 7/27/21. [GN]

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Ethanol Price Rigged Related Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to the
alleged manipulation of the benchmark price used to price and
settle ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG (AOT) filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions.

On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities filed
a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
all sellers of ethanol.

On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC filed a putative
class action in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially
the same operative facts and asserting claims under the Sherman
Act.

On November 11, 2020, six ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in
federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and
asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois and Wisconsin
law. The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending
itself in these actions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As these actions are in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."


Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Settlements in Price Fixing Suits Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court approved
the Olam and Birdsong settlements on April 5, 2021 and the ADM
settlement on July 26, 2021, resolving all of class plaintiffs'
claims in the putative class action suit initiated by D&M Farms,
Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land.

On September 5, 2019, D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed
a putative class action on behalf of a purported class of peanut
farmers under the U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in
Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden
Peanut, and another peanut shelling company, Birdsong, conspired to
fix the price they paid to farmers for raw peanuts.

Plaintiffs subsequently added a third peanut shelling company,
Olam, to the case.

In the fourth quarter of 2020, Olam and Birdsong settled with the
plaintiff class for approximately $8 million and $50 million,
respectively.

In February 2021, Golden Peanut settled for $45 million with the
plaintiff class.

The court approved the Olam and Birdsong settlements on April 5,
2021.

The court approved the ADM settlement on July 26, 2021. These
settlements resolve all of class plaintiffs' claims on this
matter.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gentilcore Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GENTILCORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-at-00630 (E.D.
Cal., July 14, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Gentilcore was employed by the Defendants as mortgage
loan supervisor.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Trevor Weinberg, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  tw@haffnerlawyers.com

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES: Victims of Phishing Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gelo Gonzales, writing for Rappler, reports that victims of
phishing are organizing class action campaigns against banks such
as BPI and BDO, and are calling out to financial institutions to
'strengthen digital platforms'

With Filipinos now relying more on online transactions because of
the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of potential phishing victims has
also grown.

Just recently, there has been a spate of attacks targeting Security
Bank clients, some of whom have banded together to appeal their
cases, which have totaled more than P5.7 million in losses from
phishing-related theft. Another victim, this time a BPI client,
says they lost nearly a million pesos in a similar phishing scam.

Members of a Facebook group for fraud victims have similar stories,
with losses ranging from a few thousand pesos to harrowing
six-digit figures. The group, which calls itself BankfraudPH,
currently has about 1,100 members, and has become sort of an
informal support group for victims trying to figure out what steps
to take to hopefully recover their money.

The group also has a petition up on Change.org calling for banks to
"strengthen their digital platforms."

"Bank advisories are not enough to avert such phishing schemes,"
the petition says, likely referring to a March 2020 Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas memorandum urging financial institutions to
continuously roll out security awareness campaigns.

Stemming from the initial petition, the group has helped in
organizing class-action lawsuits against banks as a last resort
after exhausting all means to recover their money via bank dispute
processes and intervention from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
the sector's regulator.

Its call to collective action began with a post back in October 25,
2020, stating:

"After exhausting all imaginable, diplomatic & arbitration means
possible, we are now engaging in separate class suits vs 2 of the
biggest PH banks following BSP (consumer affairs) [advice] to
pursue legal action."

Calls for registration to the BPI class action suit were posted in
October 2020 and December 2020, wherein it said, "If you have been
victimized with any of scams & credit card fraud mentioned in this
petition involving your BPI accounts and still can't move on from
that ordeal, you may consider joining our cause until Saturday,
Dec. 12."

Calls for the BDO suit began on June 10, 2021. " If you have been
victimized under that bank whether it be involving your savings
and/or credit card accounts then your dispute has been
unceremoniously dismissed, we offer you a chance to recover what
you have lost through cost-effective legal remedies," the group
said.

One major benefit of a class action suit is that the burden of
legal fees can be shared amongst the class members. Some victims
have professed that they want to get their hard-earned money back
but do not have the funds to pursue a legal case.

The trial for the class action suit against BPI began in May 2021
but no further details have been provided regarding the case. BPI
says it's unable to comment, with the matter still pending in
court.

The group is also urging other victims, from any other bank, to
reach out to them via Facebook for possible assistance.

Rappler has reached out to BDO for its comments. [GN]


BASALITE BUILDING: Faces Brennan Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basalite Building
Products, LLC. The case is captioned as James Brennan v. Basalite
Building Products, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00304507-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., July 20, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from Defendant's alleged employment-related
violation.

Basalite is a supplier of concrete masonry products. The company
manufactures ornamental and garden products.

The Defendants include Basalite Building Products, LLC, and Does
1-10.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com

BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification of Claims in Celgene Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
grant of class certification on the suit related to Celgene has
been denied.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action").

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia.

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.

In November 2020, the Court granted class certification with
respect to the remaining claims.

In December 2020, the defendants sought leave to appeal the Court's
class certification decision, which was denied without prejudice in
March 2021.

No trial date has been scheduled.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company and
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd continue to defend class action
suits in Quebec and Ontario related to Abilify.

The company (BMS) and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability
litigation related to Abilify. Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused
them to engage in compulsive gambling and other impulse control
disorders.

There have been over 2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts
and additional cases are pending in Canada.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.

In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.

To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement-related
court orders.

In the U.S., less than 20 cases remain pending on behalf of
plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement
program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date.
There are eleven cases pending in Canada (four class actions, seven
individual injury claims).

Out of the eleven cases, only two are active (the class actions in
Quebec and Ontario).

Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed
separately, subject to a pending appeal of the Ontario class
certification decision.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Related Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
district court's dismissal of the putative securities class action
suit related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer, is
still pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company (BMS), BMS's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the
time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives
of BMS.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In
October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

In September 2020, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision in October 2020.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


C & P TOWING: Corneli Seeks to Recoup Damages for Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CORNELI, and other similarly situated individuals v. C & P
TOWING & TRANSPORT, INC., and ALEXDEINE GOODWIN, Case No.
0:21-cv-61513-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2021) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked as a tow truck driver
5 days per week, 12 hours daily, or a total of 60 hours for 2
weeks. At the end of the second week, Defendants paid Plaintiff his
2 weeks of work. Defendants handed over to Plaintiff a check for
$300 covering 2 weeks of work, or $150 per week. This amount
divided by 60 working hours resulted in an hourly rate of $2.50 an
hour, which is less than the minimum wage required by law.
Plaintiff complained and objected to the reduced payment, but the
owner of the business, Goodwin, fired Plaintiff on the spot.
Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff his hard-earned wages.
Furthermore, Defendants also refused to reimburse Plaintiff $120
that he spent from his own money for gas expenses, asserts the
complaint.

Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the
rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he
worked in excess of 40, in violation of Section 7 (a) of the FLSA,
the complaint adds.

Defendant Goodwin was and is now the owner/partner and manager of
Defendant Corporation C & P Towing, a Florida corporation engaged
in interstate commerce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Duplessis Orphans Mull Class Action Over Grave Sites
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Rowe, writing for CTV News, reports that as excavations
of unmarked graves continue in Canada at former residential school
sites, a growing voice is calling for the Quebec government and
Catholic Church to begin similar excavations of former psychiatric
hospital sites where so-called Duplessis Orphans were once forced
to live.

Marc Boudreau was an orphan and described his childhood as hell.

"I was abused mentally, psychologically, from all points of view,"
he told CTV News. "I was abused sexually. I was beaten. I also lost
an eye."

Boudreau was one of the thousands of Duplessis Orphans in Quebec in
the middle of the 20th century, an era sometimes called "the Great
Darkness (Le Grande Noirceur)."

Named after former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis, the children
were wrongly labelled "mentally retarded" by government doctors and
transferred to a hospital for the mentally ill run by the Catholic
Church.

Boudreau and other orphans witnessed or heard about children dying
in the institutions in the 1940s and 50s.

Author Joanna Goodman's historical fiction novel "The Home for
Unwanted Girls" and its follow up "The Forgotten Daughter"
chronicles an orphan's journey as she is re-categorized as mentally
ill and transferred from an orphanage to a mental hospital in
Montreal where she is abused regularly and witnesses fellow
orphans' deaths.

While researching her book and speaking to orphans, Goodman said
she was told horrific stories about how the children died and how
the authorities at the hospitals dealt with their bodies.

"There were many, many, many deaths, whether from drug overdoses,
beatings, scientific experiments gone wrong, and they would carry
them out in the night and dump them," said Goodman. "It was very
similar to what was happening with the residential schools . . .
They just used to take them out like trash and bury them."

Journal de Montreal journalist Laurent Soumis reported in 1999 and
2000 on rumours of a "pigsty cemetery" at the Saint-Jean-de-Dieu
establishment in Montreal.

Numerous orphans claimed their peers were buried there in cardboard
boxes.

Rod Vienneau wrote in his book 'Collusion: The Dark History of the
Duplessis Orphans' that the alleged burial site was named as such
because it was where pigs were kept.

A country musician, Vienneau has led a campaign to find justice for
the orphans and highlight the abuses orphans faced. He hung up his
guitar and shelved his career to help his wife, Clarina Duguay, who
told him something around the year 2000 she'd never spoken of in
their 25 years of marriage.

"My wife, she said, 'I'm one of them,'" said Vienneau. "This
touched me a lot . . . Then I did some research to find her
documents and everything and that's when I got into the case. I
left the music aside to see if I could get justice."

ORPHANS' DAY IN COURT
After being rejected by several potential attorneys, Vienneau asked
lawyer Alan Stein to take the case, who filed for an authorization
for a class action in 2018 in Quebec Superior Court, which was
rejected, saying it didn't meet the requirements for a class action
suit.

Stein appealed the decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which
has agreed to hear the evidence.

For Stein, a settlement in 2000 and lack of true apology mean the
Duplessis Orphans have not received proper justice for the abuse
they suffered.

"Never," he said. "It's been a total miscarriage of justice in my
opinion."

Vienneau has since been contacting orphans around the world to add
their names to the case so they can have their day in court.

In addition to Boudreau and a co-lead plaintiff named as "N.P." in
the case, 1,451 former orphans have signed on to the case.

Boudreau said he has been waiting for justice for a childhood that
changed dramatically when he was transferred from an orphanage in
Rimouski to the Monastery of Huberdeau in Argenteuil, Que., over
600 kilometres away.

"I told myself maybe one day we will get justice," he said. "It is
like a hell that we have to live with and we are trying to get past
it."

Many, however, did not survive long enough to fight.

He said about three-quarters of them have died either at the
schools themselves or after they were released.

Nine religious organizations, including Montreal's Grey Nuns, and
the Quebec Attorney General are listed as defendants.

The case is open to "all persons, and estates of deceased persons,
who were victims of either psychological, and/or physical and/or
sexual abuse, and/or subjected to persecution and/or human
experimentation at any of the institutions operated/administered or
directed by the Respondent congregations in the province of
Quebec."

'ILLEGITIMATE' CHILDREN
The orphans were often the children of unmarried young women, who
handed their "illegitimate" children to the Catholic-run
organizations from 1949 to 1956.

Because subsidies were higher for psychiatric hospital patients
than orphanages, the children were labelled deficient and
institutionalized so the institutions could receive more funding.

Grey Nuns executive director Hubert Gauthier said he would need to
check records regarding who was at the orphanages and hospitals and
whether they died.

"The institutions that the sisters managed, they knew who was
coming in and who was going out," he said. "Sometimes the parents
existed, sometimes not."

APOLOGY WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY
Former Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard offered a public apology to
the orphans on March 4, 1999, but "without blaming or imputing
legal responsibility to anyone."

The apology came after a criminal investigation where 240 orphans
alleged 321 criminal accusations against those running the
hospitals.

The government offered $10,000, which became $15,000 and finally
around $25,000 in compensation to each of the orphans.

"It was an insult," said Stein adding that many orphans accepted
the money as they found they had few options.

Then-Quebec ombudsman Daniel Jacoby criticized the government's
handling of the orphans' case at the time.

In accepting the settlement, they signed a release not to sue the
government, which Stein argues is invalid.

"My opinion is that release does not cover either the government or
the other third parties," said Stein.

The suit reads that the payout was not a "settlement of claim in
the context of sexual and physical abuse suffered by orphans, who
were children, but rather financial assistance for them who
attended certain institutions at various times."

Gauthier feels the three parties found closure in the settlement.

"That issue has been closed for the Grey Nuns from 1996 onwards to
2002 or 03 when the government made a complete settlement for all
of these people," said Gauthier. "The score was settled then by
Bouchard . . . At that time, the three parties, the organization
representing the orphans and the organization representing the
sisters said that they were happy with the settlement."

COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR CASE
After a Superior Court judge declined the authorization for a class
action, Stein took the case to the Quebec Court of Appeals, which
the government moved to have dismissed.

"Three judges said, 'No, we want to hear this,'" said Stein.
"Obviously, they want to hear this case."

The government and religious institutions that ran the hospitals
will now file their fact sheets and then they will schedule a Court
of Appeal date.

For Boudreau and his fellow orphans, an apology and proper
compensation are long overdue.

"We are human beings," he said. "We have emotions. We have
sentiments we have qualities and faults. We are not perfect, (but)
nothing is perfect in life." [GN]


CARLOTZ INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 28 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of those who acquired CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LOTZ) securities from December 30, 2020 through
May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased CarLotz, Inc. and incurred losses are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of CarLotz, Inc., you
may, no later than September 7, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
CarLotz, Inc.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by
$0.79 per share, closing at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that the GPU
fell below expectations. The Company had expected retail GPU
between $1,300 and $1,500 but only reported $1,182. On this news,
the Company's stock price declined an additional $0.94 per share,
or approximately 14.4%, to close at $5.57 per share on May 11,
2021.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz
announced an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner
arrangement. Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing
corporate vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in
light of current wholesale market conditions, it has paused
consignments to the Company." This particular partner "accounted
for more than 60% of the cars sold and sourced" during the first
quarter 2021 and "less than 50% of the cars sold and approximately
25% of cars sourced" during the second quarter of 2021 to date.

On this news, the Company's stock price declined by $0.70 per
share, or approximately 13.4%, to close at $4.51 per share on May
26, 2021.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

CENTO FINE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cento Fine Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Cento
Fine Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04328-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2,
2021).

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

Cento Fine Foods -- https://www.cento.com/ -- is a premier Italian
food distributor, importer and producer, presents a distinctive
line of over 1000 authentic Italian style products.[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


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Dismiss Mattera Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in Anthony Mattera v. Robert A. Baffert, Bob Baffert
Racing, Inc. and Churchill Downs Incorporated, is pending.

On May 14, 2021, plaintiff Anthony Mattera filed a class action
complaint in the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville,
Kentucky against defendants Robert A. Baffert, Bob Baffert Racing,
Inc., and Churchill Downs Incorporated regarding the entry of
Medina Spirit into the 147th running of the Kentucky Derby, along
with the potential disqualification of Medina Spirit as the winner
of Kentucky Derby 147.

Plaintiff's claims against the Company include negligence, a
violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment,
along with a claim for injunctive relief.

The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky on May 21, 2021 and filed a motion to
dismiss on July 7, 2021.

The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously and believes
that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses against the
plaintiff's allegations and requests for relief, including his
class allegations.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Soileau Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
class settlement in the class action suit entitled, John L.
Soileau, et al. v. Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC,
Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No.
14-3873), is pending.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana.

The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008.

The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC ("Fair
Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video
draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse
supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been
paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live
thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of
those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse
horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.

The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds.

On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.
By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
District Court, which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's
ruling.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's decision
with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed
the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to
the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13,
2018.

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair
Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of
Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.

The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in
October 2018 but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, the parties resumed
informal settlement discussions, and, as a result, the Company
established an accrual for an immaterial amount in the third
quarter of 2019. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to
the District Court on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana
Racing Commission's approval to transfer the matter to the District
Court for approval and administration of the settlement agreement
on February 12, 2020.

At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain
deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members.

The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair
Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that
is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the
third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates
a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse
purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps
that are not deemed material.

On June 13, 2020, the legislation addressed in the settlement
agreement was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the
Governor of Louisiana. The settlement includes a release of claims
against the Fair Grounds Defendants in connection with the
proceeding, although individual plaintiffs may opt-out.

If there are opt-out claims in excess of $50,000, the settlement
will be voided, unless the parties agree to stipulate otherwise.
The settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval. After the parties entered into the
settlement, legal counsel for six objecting plaintiffs filed an
amended petition with the District Court.

After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District Court dismissed the
amended petition. The objecting plaintiffs filed a notice of their
intention to seek a writ with the Louisiana Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit related to the dismissal of the amended
petition, which was denied.

The fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms
of the settlement agreement occurred on October 7, 2020, and
November 17, 2020, and the parties have submitted post-trial
briefing and proposed final judgments. Objecting plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal of the February 2020 Order appointing
class counsel certifying a class for settlement purposes.

On January 28, 2021, the District Court issued a Final Order and
Judgement approving the settlement.

The objectors filed a notice of appeal of the January 28, 2021
Final Order and Judgment. That appeal has been consolidated with
the earlier-filed appeal of the February 2020 order appointing
class counsel and certifying a class for settlement purposes.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CLEARBALANCE: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on July 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action on behalf of ClearBalance customers whose confidential
information was disclosed to cybercriminals during a data breach
involving ClearBalance's email accounts.

ClearBalance services loans made by banks to patients of healthcare
providers. On March 8, 2021, cybercriminals infiltrated
ClearBalance's email account through a successful phishing attack.
ClearBalance was unaware of the security breach until April 26,
2021, after the criminals had already attempted to commit wire
fraud. The subsequent investigation into the breach revealed that
cybercriminals were able to access the following highly
confidential information:

Names, tax IDs, Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
government-issued ID numbers, telephone numbers, healthcare account
numbers, balance amounts, dates of service, ClearBalance loan
numbers and balances, personal banking information, clinical
information, health insurance information, and full-face
photographic images.

If you received notice of the data breach or have determined that
your personal information was comprised, please contact Federman &
Sherwood.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit

https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-class-action-on-behalf-of-clearbalance-data-breach-victims/

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all ClearBalance
customers who were affected by the data breach.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions
regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please
contact: Priscilla Scoggins at pms@federmanlaw.com or visit the
firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on July 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: COIN)
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement for the resale of up to 114.8 million shares, whereby
Coinbase began trading as a public company on or around April 14,
2021 (the "Offering"). Coinbase investors have until September 20,
2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S. The
Offering materials stated that Coinbase is "powered by a robust
backend technology system" and that it had "grown quickly and in a
capital-efficient manner since [its] founding."

On May 17, 2021, Coinbase announced a $1.25 billion convertible
bond sale. Forbes.com noted that "[i]nvestors were also likely
surprised by the timing of the issue, considering that Coinbase
just went public in mid-April via a direct listing (which doesn't
involve issuing new shares or raising capital), signaling that it
didn't require cash."

On this news, Coinbase's stock fell $9.24, or 3.7%, to close at
$239.00 per share on May 18, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on May 19, 2021, Coinbase announced technical problems,
including "delays…due to network congestion" affecting those who
wanted to withdraw their money.

On this news, Coinbase's stock price fell $14.20, or 6%, to close
at $224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2) Coinbase's
platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

If you purchased Coinbase Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering, have information or would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

CONNECTICUT: Hartford Attorneys Discuss Hepatitis C Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeVaughn Ward, Esq., and Ken Krayeske, Esq., of Hartford, in
article for CTNewsJunkie.com report that make no mistake about it:
governments can provide health care to their citizens. In America,
our state and federal governments must be made to do so.

On this World Hepatitis C Day, we can reflect on how more than a
dozen Hepatitis C class action lawsuits across the country,
including the one we filed against the Connecticut Department of
Correction demanding testing and treatment of prisoners -- have
saved thousands of lives and made state governments provide health
care to a neglected segment of the population.

HCV is a blood-born pathogen, transmitted by needles and sex.
Prisons, filled with criminalized addicts, are ground zero for HCV.
Prisoners have long sued over HCV treatment, but in 2013, a
revolutionary new class of drugs called direct-acting antivirals,
known as DAAs, altered the landscape overnight.

DAAs were expensive -- sometimes $80,000 for one eight-week course
of treatment to cure one person. Even though DAAs now are cheaper
than the state paying for a liver transplant in five years, and
despite being the standard of care, correctional systems avoided
providing them.

DOC had set up a roadblock called the Hepatitis C utilization
review board that ration care until late approval of treatments the
DOC wasn't even texting everyone for it in the three years from
2015 to 2018 the DOC and cured less than 80 people.

In 2014, Pennsylvania's celebrated death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal
appears to have been one of the first people to win a federal
injunction granting him access to DAAs.

Lawyers in the Keystone State followed with a class action, and the
wave spread to Massachusetts, Missouri, Florida, Minnesota,
California and Colorado.

California and Colorado settled their cases when the case was
filed. The Pennsylvania DOC fought it. Massachusetts dragged its
case out for years. The state of Missouri appealed to the Eighth
Circuit twice.

But access to DAAs always won.

Here in Connecticut, we were the 11th state to file when we did so
in July, 2018.

Robert Barfield, a West Coast guy doing Nevada time here at
Corrigan–Radgowski in Uncasville, asked repeatedly in writing for
access to DHS from 2014 to 2018. DOC denied him. Too expensive, he
was told, Not necessary. He filed a habeas, and he found us.

Barfield's paper trail created the basis for our lawsuit. At first,
Attorney General William Tong's office tried to dismiss the case.

Within six months, Tong's lawyers produced medical documents
showing the DOC approved DAAs for Mr. Barfield, the "newspaper
case." He was cured before the court could adjudicate his claims.

We added more plaintiffs. DOC cured them too. District Court Judge
Michael Shea, an Obama nominee, saw through the DOCs attempt to
pick off class representatives and granted us class certification
and said Barfield was the representative.

A class has a life of its own. To avoid liability, the same day
Judge Shea issued his ruling in August 2019, the DOC announced a
policy change to test and treat everyone.

A settlement mandating treatment and opt out testing was
negotiated. Testimony to the General Assembly in January 2021
estimated the cost of the two-year settlement $40 million, and the
legislature approved the agreement.

For those keeping track, that is about the cost of operating the
maximum-security facility Northern Correctional Institution, which
has been plagued by lawsuits claiming cruel and unusual
punishments.

When Gov. Ned Lamont announced the closure of Northern this year,
it wasn't difficult to see a correlation: paying for health care
means closing prisons.

While a mistake in the settlement agreement language granting DOC
too broad a release has forced the sides back to the negotiating
table, the DOC continues to act as if the settlement remains in
place.

On June 30, the Connecticut DOC reported to Judge Shea that it had
cured 776 people so far. That's 776 people who will return to their
families without the burden of HCV. That's 776 people who will live
and love longer, and get another chance at life without a fatal
disease.

These same reports estimate another 500 people in custody still
have HCV and need treatment. We expect to come close to that number
when the settlement sunsets in March 2022.

It felt good to write a letter to the Nevada Board of Pardons and
Paroles on behalf of Mr. Barfield for his early release. His
advocacy has cured enough people to fill Hartford Stage and
Theatreworks and Real Art Ways simultaneously. He appears to have
won that, and hopefully will be released by the end of the year.

Our front row seat in Barfield v. Quiros has also shown us how the
state will fight, argue there is no claim, pay for legal experts
instead of treatment, delay, deny, delay and then when there is no
other option, the state will do the right thing.

Please do not be naïve, though: while curing HCV is the moral
thing, it is fair to suggest that the DOC changed its policy and
mooted our case to prevent a federal judge from having oversight
into the daily operations of our prison system.

It does not have to be this way. We can live in a place that
provides health care to everyone as a policy choice, and we can do
so by starting with our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. We
need leaders who recognize this and act accordingly.

Another world is possible, and the HCV litigation gives us insight
into how to make it happen. [GN]


CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Getaw Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONALD GETAW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, LLC;
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; EVAN BOYD; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV22036, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July
28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06097 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 overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations,
failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, and unfair
competition.

Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC is a waste management services
company based in California.

Republic Services, Inc. is a solid waste collection company based
in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Miranda A. Mossavar, Esq.
         Krystal Saleh, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: mmossavar@littler.com
                 ksaleh@littler.com

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Cheslow Sues Over Insurance Rate Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA CHESLOW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04010 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's decisions to seek and
implement rate increases that vary from one state to the next which
violate its policy promises that insureds will never be singled out
for a rate increase, and that premiums will not change unless they
change for all insureds in the same age group. As a result,
insureds within the same age group find themselves paying
completely different premiums from one another, even though they
are members of the same age group, premium class, and risk pool.
The Plaintiff seeks rescission of her insurance contracts and
restoration of premiums paid or, in the alternative, declaratory
and injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.

Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (708) 628-4949
         E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Robert B. Carey, Esq.
         John M. DeStefano, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85003
         Telephone: (602) 840-5900
         E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                 johnm@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8291
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

                - and –

         Sean K. Collins, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
         184 High Street, Suite 503
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (855) 693-9256
         E-mail: Sean@Neinsurancelaw.com

COOLING & WINTER: Lalloo Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooling & Winter,
LLC. The case is styled as Wayne Lalloo, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Cooling & Winter, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-14310-AMC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2021).

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

Cooling & Winter LLC, Attorneys at Law --
http://www.coolingwinter.com/--- is a creditors rights' law firm
serving clients in the Southeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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



CORMEDIX INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CorMedix Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-14020, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities
between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
CorMedix securities during the Class Period, you have until
September 20, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

CorMedix is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products for the prevention and
treatment of infectious and inflammatory diseases in the United
States and internationally. The Company is focused on developing
its lead product candidate, DefenCath, a purported novel
antibacterial and antifungal solution designed to prevent costly
and dangerous catheter-related bloodstream infections ("CRBSIs").

In July 2020, CorMedix completed submission of a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for DefenCath as a catheter lock solution with an initial
indication for use of preventing CRBSIs in patients with end-stage
renal disease who are receiving hemodialysis via a central venous
catheter.

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 made
material misrepresentations concerning the following: (i)
deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's manufacturing
process and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing
DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing deficiencies, the FDA was
unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for CRBSIs in its present
form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [NDA] for DefenCath . . . in its
present form." CorMedix informed investors that the "FDA noted
concerns at the third-party manufacturing facility after a review
of records requested by FDA and provided by the manufacturing
facility"; that the "FDA did not specify the issues and CorMedix
intends to work with the manufacturing facility to develop a plan
for resolution when FDA informs the facility of the specific
concerns"; that, "[w]hen we are informed of the issues, we will
schedule an investor conference call to provide an update on our
expected timeline for resolution"; and that, "[a]dditionally, FDA
is requiring a manual extraction study to demonstrate that the
labeled volume can be consistently withdrawn from the vials despite
an existing in-process control to demonstrate fill volume within
specifications."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.

Then, on April 14, 2021, Defendants announced that CorMedix would
have to take additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for
DefenCath's manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing FDA's
concerns regarding the qualification of the filling operation
[that] may necessitate adjustments in the process and generation of
additional data on operating parameters for manufacture of
DefenCath."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021.

Finally, on May 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA." After an analyst pressed for
clearer information on DefenCath's manufacturing deficiencies on a
conference call held that same day, Phoebe Mounts, CorMedix's
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, finally disclosed,
inter alia, that "there are times when there may be unexpected
results obtained"; that the FDA "expect[s] us to generate
sufficient data to demonstrate that [the filling] process is a
controlled process and is consistent with the agency's requirements
for good manufacturing practice"; that "sterility is a very
important part of that process," as well as "the accuracy in making
sure the right volume of DEFENCATH is loaded into the vials"; that
"we are talking about thousands of vials during the manufacturing
run"; that Defendant must "generat[e] of a lot of data to make sure
that . . . all the equipment has been qualified for the intended
use and every step in the manufacturing process has been
qualified"; that "th[e] process needs to be very robust, [and]
needs to be reproducible"; and that "the burden is on the
manufacturer to demonstrate that the facility can do that process
reducibly and generate the required product for commercial
distribution."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021.

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
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Wants 2nd Circuit to Toss ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Cornell University urged the Second Circuit on
July 28 to back a lower court's decision axing allegations that the
Ivy League school mismanaged its employee retirement plans, saying
the class didn't have evidence supporting claims that the plans
paid unreasonable fees and offered poor performing investment
options. [GN]



D F STAUFFER: Faces Rudy Suit Over Deceptive Product Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER RUDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D F STAUFFER BISCUIT CO INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03938 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2021) alleges the
Defendant of violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff has purchased the Defendant's "Lemon Snaps" cookies,
which are flat, brittle drop cookies, purporting to be flavored
from lemons. The Plaintiff has expected that the product contains a
non-de minimis amount of lemon ingredients based on the
representations on its label showing freshly picked lemons.
However, the ingredients list in the fine print on the back reveals
the Product contains no appreciable amount of lemon, as it lists
"Natural and Artificial Flavors," which refers to a mix of natural
and synthetic source material that is combined in a laboratory
through toxic solvents, containing additives. Lab analysis confirms
that the Product has a de minimis amount of lemon and its "lemon"
taste is mainly from synthetic citral, derived from the
petrochemical industry, without the range of compounds essential to
a lemon's taste, says the suit.

Had the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers known the
truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it because the value of the Product was materially less
than its value as represented by the Defendant. Unfortunately, the
Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers, the suit added.

Allegedly, the Defendant has misrepresented the Product through
statements, omissions, ambiguities, half-truths and/or actions.
Unfortunately, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Supra
owners relied on the Defendant's false and deceptive
representations. As a result, they suffered damages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated Supra owners seeking
monetary damages, statutory damages, litigation costs and expenses
and reasonable attorneys and experts fees, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunctive
relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged
practices and representations, and restitution and disgorgement for
members of the class pursuant to the applicable laws.

D F Stauffer Biscuit Co Inc. manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells "Lemon Snaps" cookies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11-21-3104
          Tel: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS: Estevez Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ESTEVEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISTRESSED SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-22770 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant called the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals using a prerecorded or artificial voice message to
promote its products or services without obtaining prior express
written consent. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct,
the Plaintiff's privacy was invaded.

Distressed Solutions, LLC is a residential real property firm, with
its principal address at 5009 N. Central Ave., Tampa, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
         EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
         425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 524-2820
         Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
         E-mail: seth@epllc.com

                - and –

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

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, Clinger Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN CLINGER, MONICA BARBA, and HEATHER RUDY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01040-AVC (D. Conn., July 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud by omission and violations of the
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Illinois'
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and
unfair advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Banana Boat
sunscreen products. The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers
that the products contain benzene, a harmful carcinogen. The
Plaintiffs and Class members suffered injury in fact and lost money
as a result of the Defendant's alleged misleading representations
and omissions and did not receive the benefit of the bargain.

Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC is a manufacturer of personal
care products with its principal place of business in Shelton,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
         Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
         MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
         10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 396-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
         E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

                - and –

         Hank Bates, Esq.
         David Slade, Esq.
         Sam Jackson, Esq.
         CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
         519 West 7th St.
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 312-8500
         Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
         E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                 dslade@cbplaw.com

                - and –

         Ryan Casey, Esq.
         CASEY LAW FIRM, LLC
         PO Box 4577
         Frisco, CO 80443
         Telephone: (970) 372-6509
         Facsimile: (970) 372-6482
         E-mail: ryan@rcaseylaw.com

EXACT SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Flannery Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Exact Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, Flannery v. Genomic
Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492, is pending.

In connection with the Company's combination with Genomic Health,
on June 22, 2020, Suzanne Flannery, a purported former stockholder
of Genomic Health, filed a Verified Individual and Class Action
Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Flannery v.
Genomic Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492.

Flannery amended her complaint on November 23, 2020. The amended
complaint asserts individual and class action claims, including:
(i) a violation of 8 Del. C. Section 203 by Genomic Health, Exact
Sciences and a purported controlling group of former Genomic Health
stockholders; (ii) conversion by Genomic Health, Exact Sciences and
Spring Acquisition Corp.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty by Genomic
Health's former directors; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty by the
purported controlling group; and (v) aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Exact Sciences, Spring Acquisition and
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Genomic Health's financial advisor in the
combination.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory
relief, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Oral
argument on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint
occurred in May 2021 and the ruling on the motion to dismiss is
pending as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Exact Sciences Corporation is a molecular diagnostics company with
an initial focus on the early detection and prevention of
colorectal cancer. Exact Sciences Corp. launched Cologuard in 2014,
the first stool DNA test for colorectal cancer. The company is
based in Madison, Wisconsin.


FCA US: White Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Door Locks
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-11696, (E.D. Mich., July 21, 2021), seeks an award of
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, including delay damages,
attorneys' fees and such other and further judiciary determinations
and relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of warranty,
breach of implied warranty, fraud by concealment and for violation
of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, Song-Beverly Act, the California
Business and Professions Code an the Texas Business and Commerce
Code.

Defendant is an automotive manufacturer in the United States that
maintains the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brand.

White purchased a new model year 2018 Dodge Grand Caravan from Marc
Motors Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in Sanford, Maine. On March 12,
2021, White recognized that the rear passenger side door on her
vehicle had stopped locking. White was charged $630.80 for the
parts and labor necessary to repair the vehicle because this was
not included in the warranty. She claims that this defect arises
from defective actuators preventing the locks from functioning and
causes the vehicles' door sensors to fail and therefore must be a
manufacturing defect. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com
             dal@millerlawpc.com

             - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
      Mark I. Richards, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
      Ontario, CA 91761
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com

FERRARA CANDY: Cashman Sues Over Mislabeled Cookies' Fudge and Mint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JODI CASHMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04033 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its cookies under the Keebler brand. The Defendant labeled the
product as "Fully Fudged – Fudge Mint," "Naturally and
Artificially Flavored," and "Made With Real Keebler Fudge." The
representations that the product is "Made With Real Keebler Fudge"
and contains actual mint ingredients are false, deceptive, and
misleading because it does not contain these ingredients. The
product lacks butter and milk, essential ingredients to fudge. The
Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the product or
paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages,
says the suit.

Ferrara Candy Company is an American candy manufacturer based in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

FOREFRONT DERMATOLOGY: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOREFRONT DERMATOLOGY, S.C. and FOREFRONT
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00891-WCG (E.D. Wis.,
July 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to secure the
personally identifying information (PII) of their clients following
a data breach on Forefront's system between the dates of May 28,
2021 and June 4, 2021. Despite the well-known risks of hackers and
cybersecurity intrusions, Forefront failed to employ adequate data
security measures in a meaningful way, or make changes to its
practices and protocols, in order to prevent breaches. As a result
of Forefront's alleged conduct and the resulting data breach, the
Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy has been invaded, their PII
is now in the hands of criminals, and they face a substantially
increased risk of identity theft and fraud.

Forefront Dermatology, S.C. is a dermatology services provider,
with a principal place of business located at 801 York Street,
Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

Forefront Management, LLC is a company that provides dermatology
services located in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
         John D. Blythin, Esq.
         ADEMI LLP
         3620 East Layton Avenue
         Cudahy, WI 53110
         Telephone: (414) 482-8000
         Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
         E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                 jblythin@ademilaw.com

                - and –

         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
         Theodore Maya, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505-4521
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and –

         Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

GALLATIAN CHICKEN: Lewis Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
AEYISHA LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. GALLATIAN CHICKEN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00559 (M.D. Tenn., July 23, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as non-exempt General
Manager at the Gallatian Pike Popeyes from approximately December
2018 until January 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully failed to
compensate him and other similarly situated non-exempt employees
for all the time they spent performing duties for the Defendant,
specifically all the minimum wages they earned during their
employment. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay
him $870 in minimum wages for her last two weeks of work. The
Plaintiff also added that because he complained about the
Defendant's unlawful pay practices, the Defendant retaliated
against him by forcing him to choose between acting within the law
or losing her job.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation costs and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which he and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees may be entitled.

Gallatian Chicken LLC operates a Popeyes fried chicken franchise in
Nashville. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Tel: (615) 250-2000
          Fax: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Nix Houston Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in "the Houston Putative Class Action Suit, is pending.

In October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was
filed in New York state court naming as defendants the company
(GE), certain GE subsidiaries and current and former GE executive
officers and employees.

It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior
notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those
notes. This case was stayed pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Hachem case.

In April 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and GE in
June 2021 filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.

GRAHAM PACKAGING: Collects Employees' Biometrics, Morales Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAHAM PACKAGING PLASTIC PRODUCTS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2021L000801 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Ct.,
Dupage Cty., July 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's policy to require employees,
including the Plaintiff, to scan their hands in the Defendant's
biometric time clock each time they started and finished working,
instead of identification numbers or badges only. The Defendant
allegedly violated BIPA by collecting, storing, and sharing
employees' biometric information without obtaining their written
consent.

Graham Packaging Plastic Products LLC is a manufacturer of plastic
bottles based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
         Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
         WERMAN SALAS P.C.
         77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 419-1008
         E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 zflowerree@flsalaw.com

GRAND CARIBBEAN: Barney TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACQUELINE BARNEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GRAND CARIBBEAN CRUISES, INC.,
Case No. CACE-21-012921, was removed from the Superior Court of the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on July 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-61560 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to contact the Plaintiff's and Class members'
telephone numbers without the prior express consent.

Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc. is a cruise travel company based in
Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq.
         Roy Taub, Esq.
         200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 491-1120
         E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
                 roy.taub@gmlaw.com

GREENWAY HOME: Wright Suit to Recover Minimum Pay, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wright, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Greenway Home Services, LLC, Greenway Home
Services, LLC (d/b/a Mister Greenway Plumbing Heating & Air),
Greenway Home Services, LLC (d/b/a Homeserv of Memphis), Greenway
Home Services of Nashville, LLC, and Whit Greenway, Whitney
Greenway and Devin Williams, individually, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00549 (M.D. Tenn., July 21, 2021), is a class action for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants are engaged in providing commercial and residential
appliance, plumbing, and heating and cooling repair and
installation services in the Memphis and Nashville, Tennessee area
where Wright was employed as a non-exempt technician and installer
from approximately September/October of 2018 through approximately
November of 2019. He claims to have routinely worked more than 40
hours each workweek without overtime and has worked for less than
the minimum wage in certain workweeks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
      Peter F. Klett, Esq.
      DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
      Fifth Third Center
      424 Church Street, Suite 800
      Nashville, TN 37219-2392
      Tel: (615) 244-6538
      Email: agentry@dickinsonwright.com
             pklett@dickinsonwright.com


GREGORYS COFFEE: Baristas' Suit Assert Fair Workweek Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA OSHAUGHNESSY and MELISSA MURILLO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. GREGORYS COFFEE MANAGEMENT
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06272 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's failure to comply with the New York City Fair
Workweek Law, the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the supporting New
York State Department of Labor Regulations, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The complaint alleges that Gregorys has violated the Fair Workweek
Law by failing to provide predictable schedules with at least
14-days' notice, changing Plaintiffs' schedules at the last minute,
requiring employees and Plaintiffs to work closing and opening
shifts without at least 11 hours off in between, and failing to
offer new shifts to current employees before hiring new employees.
Gregorys also violated the NYLL and the FLSA by requiring employees
to work off-the-clock at the end and start of their shift to avoid
having to pay overtime premiums. Finally, Gregorys violated the
NYLL by failing to provide each employee with a statement with
every payment of wages, listing the following: address and phone
number of employer; and all rates of pay, including the Fair
Workweek premiums, which Gregorys did not pay.

Plaintiffs Oshaughnessy and Murillo were hired as baristas by
Defendant Gregorys Coffee Management LLC, a fast-food establishment
with a principal place of business in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Werman Salas P.C.
          335 18th Pl NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone No.: (202)744-1407
          Fax No.: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

                    - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Werman Salas P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone No.: (312) 419-1008
          Fax No.: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dwerman@flsalaw.com


GUS'S MARKET: Notice to Defendant Sent in Mejia Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL MEJIA JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GUS'S MARKET CHANNEL, LLC; GUS'S COMMUNITY MARKET, LLC; DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-593231, a notice to the
Defendant was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco, on July 28, 2021.

Gus's Market Channel, LLC is a limited liability company doing
business in California.

Gus's Community Market, LLC is a limited liability company doing
business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                 
         David H. Yeremian, Esq.
         DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
         535 Brand Blvd., Suite 705
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 230-8380

                 - and –

         Walter Haines, Esq.
         5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
         Huntington Beach, CA 92649

HANWHA TECHWI: Ill. Judge Tosses Biometric Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a proposed
biometric privacy class action against a security camera company
was dismissed after an Illinois federal judge found the plaintiffs
offered vague accusations but no plausible details on how the
facial scans in question were allegedly collected.

Plaintiff Leroy Jacobs' Biometric Information Privacy Act lawsuit
is dismissed for this lack of specificity on the alleged
violations, Judge Robert W. Gettleman wrote in an opinion filed on
July 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Jacobs sued Hanwha Techwin America Inc. in state court in January,
accusing the security camera company of violating BIPA.[GN]



HDFC BANK: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HDFC Bank Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2021, that the company's motion to dismiss the
securities class action suit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, is pending.

On September 3, 2020, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Bank and certain of its current and former directors
and officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The complaint was amended on February 8, 2021.

The amended complaint alleges that the Bank, its former managing
director, Mr. Aditya Puri, and the present managing director and
CEO, Mr. Sashidhar Jagdishan made materially false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of the Bank's business and
compliance policies, which the complaint alleges resulted in the
Bank’s ADS price declining on July 13, 2020 and thereby allegedly
causing damage to the Bank’s investors.

The Bank, on July 23, 2021, through its legal counsel, has filed
the reply memorandum of law in further support of the motion to
dismiss the securities class action suit.

The Bank intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations.

Headquartered in Mumbai, India, HDFC Bank Limited is a private
sector bank that offers a range of commercial and transactional
banking services and treasury products to wholesale and retail
customers. The bank operates in three segments: retail banking,
wholesale banking and treasury services.  The retail banking
segment serves retail customers through a branch network and other
delivery channels. The wholesale banking segment provides loans and
transaction services to corporate and institutional customers. The
treasury services segment undertakes trading operations on the
proprietary account, foreign exchange operations and derivatives
trading.


JAYBIRD SENIOR: Faces Bracher Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLEY BRACHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAYBIRD SENIOR LIVING, LLC and
WIRC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00889-BHL (E.D. Wis., July
29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment
and Collection Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated repairmen overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a health services
lead in Wisconsin from December 2020 until July 2021.

Jaybird Senior Living, LLC is an owner, operator, and manager of
senior care and residential living facilities across the United
States, with a principal address located at 208 35th St. Dr. SE,
Suite 500, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

WIRC, LLC is a senior care facility operator, with a principal
address located at 808 Dearborn Avenue, Waterloo, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
           
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bodine Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ALEXANDER BODINE, HALLE ELLINGSON, KURT HALL, BENNETT
JOHNSON, KYLE MELQUIST, SAMANTHA STOLZENBACH, SHARON TRAINOR, and
STACEY VAIDIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-14343 (D.N.J., July 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express and implied warranties,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and other state consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its sunscreen products. The Defendant marketed its products as safe
and healthy, but contrary to the representations, the sunscreen
products contain benzene, a harmful carcinogen. The presence of
benzene rendered the sunscreen products unsafe, adulterated, and
misbranded. Had the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes known the
truth, they would not have purchased the products, says the suit.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Rd.
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700
         Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
         E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 kcooper@carellabyrne.com

                - and –

         Kellie Lerner, Esq.
         William V. Reiss, Esq.
         David B. Rochelson, Esq.
         Adam C. Mendel, Esq.
         ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
         399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 980-7400
         Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
         E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                 wreiss@robinskaplan.com
                 drochelson@robinskaplan.com
                 amendel@robinskaplan.com

                - and –

         M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
         THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM P.C.
         P.O. Box 161
         Fairhope, AL 36533
         Telephone: (251) 929-0900
         Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
         E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

                - and –

         Lee McArthur Scott, Esq.
         MCARTHUR LAW, LLC
         803 Jenks Ave., Ste. 4
         Panama City, FL 32401-2568
         Telephone: (850) 832-3032
         Facsimile: (850) 784-7706
         E-mail: lee@mcarthur.law

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cohen Sues Over Asbestos Exposure From Cosmetics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC.; ALMAY, INC.; BRENNTAG SPECIALITIES, INC., f/k/a
Mineral Pigment Solutions, Inc., as a successor-in-interest to
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, as a
successor-in interest to Mineral Pigment Solutions, Inc., as a
successor-in-interest to Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.; CLINIQUE
LABORATORIES, LLC; COSMETIC SPECIALTIES, INC.; L'OREAL USA, INC.;
MAYBELLINE, LLC; REVLON, INC.; REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS
CORPORATION; THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC.; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY; WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS
1-50; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 51-100, Defendants, Case No.
MID-L-004448-21 (N.J. Sup. Ct., July 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express and implied
warranties, negligence, conspiracy, and product liability claims.

The case arises from the Defendants' marketing of
asbestos-containing cosmetic talcum powder products. The Defendants
breached their non-delegable duty to warn and negligently supplied
defective materials and products without ensuring that the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers were warned
about the dangers of asbestos exposure. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff
contracted mesothelioma and suffered from other various diverse
injuries and attendant complications.

Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., formerly known as Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., is a manufacturer of consumer
products based in New Jersey.

Almay, Inc. is a cosmetics company headquartered in New York, New
York.

Brenntag Specialities, Inc., formerly known as Mineral Pigment
Solutions, Inc., is a specialty chemicals company based in
California.

Brenntag North America is a chemical distributor located in
Pennsylvania.

Clinique Laboratories, LLC is an American manufacturer of skincare,
cosmetics, toiletries and fragrances based in New York.

Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaging products
based in California.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a cosmetic products company based in New York,
New York.

Maybelline, LLC is a cosmetics company headquartered in New York,
New York.

Revlon, Inc. is a cosmetics, skin care, fragrance, and personal
care company, headquartered in New York, New York.

Revlon Consumer Products Corporation is a cosmetics company,
headquartered in New York, New York.

The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is a cosmetics company,
headquartered in New York, New York.

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. is a consumer products company
based in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
           
         Amber R. Long, Esq.       
         LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
         605 Third Avenue, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10158
         Telephone: (212) 605-6200

               - and –

         Suzanne Ratcliffe, Esq.
         MAUNE RAICHLE HARTLEY FRENCH & MUDD, LLC
         659 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite #28
         West Orange, NJ 07052
         Telephone: (800) 358-5922

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Product Liability Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC., Case No. ATL-L-2324-21,
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July
28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-14270-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

In this class action, the Plaintiff alleges personal injury from
using cosmetic talcum powder products manufactured and sold by the
Defendants.

National Council of Negro Women is a nonprofit organization with
the mission to advance the opportunities and the quality of life
for African-American women, their families, and communities,
headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.

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

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Susan M. Sharko, Esq.
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
         600 Campus Drive
         Florham Park, NJ 07932
         Telephone: (973) 549-7000
         Facsimile: (973) 360-9831
         E-mail: susan.sharko@faegredrinker.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Causes Cancer, Dominguez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANNA DOMINGUEZ; and SHARRON MEIJER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05419-JSC (N.D. Cal.,
July 14, 2021) alleges that the sunscreen products of the Defendant
contains dangerous high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity
that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers (hereinafter,
the "Product" or "Products").

According to the complaint, recent independent scientific testing,
confirmed by JJCI through a massive nationwide recall, has revealed
that several of the Defendant's Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen
products contain dangerous and unacceptable levels of benzene, a
known human carcinogen.

Each and every one of the Products allegedly fails to include
labeling indicating that the Product may contain benzene as an
active or inactive ingredient. The presence of benzene rendered the
Products adulterated, misbranded, and unlawful for sale. The
Defendant's conduct with respect to the Products caused economic
damages to Plaintiffs and the Class.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly Channick, Esq.
          Alex Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH LAW PLLC
          1050 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500
          Washington D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (213) 863-4276
          Facsimile: (202) 780-3678
          E-mail: kchannick@alexwalshlaw.com
                  awalsh@alexwalshlaw.com

               -and-

          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          Alex Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
          E-mail: sam@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com

               -and-

          Warren Postman, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 918-1123
          Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
          E-mail: wdp@kellerlenkner.com

               -and-

          David B. Byrne III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
          PORTIS & MIKES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: david.byrne@beasleyallen.com

JONES LANG: Znaczko Hits Discrimination, Seeks Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Znaczko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. and David
Paul, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-13953 (D. N.J., July 21, 2021),
seeks damages to redress injuries suffered as a result of being
discriminated on the basis of Plaintiff's disability and for
Defendants' failure to provide reasonable accommodation related to
Plaintiff's disability as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and to remedy violations of the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination and for retaliation by unlawfully
termination.

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas specializes in real estate and
investment management, including buying, building, occupying and
investing in industrial, commercial, retail, residential and hotel
properties. It operates a Bristol Meyers Squibb facility located
Lawrence Township, New Jersey where Znaczko worked as a systems
technician. He was diagnosed with laberintitis and suffers
substantial hearing loss in his right ear, especially when
surrounded by loud and pulsing vibrations.

Znaczko claims that he was terminated for failing to attend to an
emergency at work because he was not to able to hear the cue for
the work order due to his hearing impairment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel C. Wilson, Esq.
      DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 391-4790
      Email: samuel@dereksmithlaw.com

KELLOGG'S CO: Sept. 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan MacGuill, writing for Snopes, reports that a class action
lawsuit against Kellogg's, and open to consumers who bought one of
several varieties of Kellogg's cereal between 2012 and 2020, was
authentic.

Origin
In the summer of 2021, social media users enthusiastically shared
reports and blog posts about a supposed class action lawsuit that
would allow anyone who bought certain varieties of Kellogg's
cereals in the United States between 2012 and 2020 to apply for
compensation.

For example, on July 8, TheFreebieGuy.com published a post
reporting that:

If you purchased certain Kellogg's Cereal products you may be
eligible to receive cash back as part of a Class Action
Settlement.

Who's Eligible
Anyone who purchased certain Kellogg's Cereal products between
August 29th, 2012 and May 1st, 2020. Products includes are:
Kellogg's Raisin Bran, Smart Start, or Frosted Mini-Wheats Cereal.

Similar articles were posted by several other money-saving and
consumer websites. Those accounts were accurate, so we are issuing
a rating of "True."

The class action lawsuit in question -- Hadley et al vs. Kellogg
Sales Company -- was a real case before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

As part of a settlement agreement between the primary plaintiffs --
Texas resident Stephen Hadley and four plaintiffs who live in New
York state -- Kellogg's has agreed to establish a $13 million
settlement fund, most of which will be distributed, according to
several formulae, among eligible applicants who purchased any of
three varieties of Kellogg's cereals between 2012 and 2020.

The plaintiffs have argued that, for years, Kellogg's has
deceptively marketed several of its cereals as "heart healthy,"
"healthy," "nutritious" and "lightly sweetened," and deceptively
suggested that consuming them can help you lose weight, even though
they contain relatively very high levels of sugar.

Although their complaint originally referred to several different
varieties of cereal, the settlement agreement -- which has received
preliminary, but not final, approval from the court -- limits the
class action lawsuit to consumers in the U.S. who purchased any of
the following types, between Aug. 29, 2012 and May 1, 2020:

Kellogg's Original Raisin Bran and Kellogg's Raisin Bran Crunch
cereals in a package stating "heart healthy."

Kellogg's Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal in a package
stating "heart healthy" and/or "lightly sweetened."

Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size (Original, Maple Brown
Sugar, Strawberry, or Blueberry varieties), Big Bites (Original
variety), Little Bites (Chocolate or Cinnamon Roll varieties), or
Touch of Fruit in the Middle (Mixed Berry and Raspberry varieties)
cereals in a package stating "lightly sweetened."

The exact amount that each eligible applicant ultimately receives
will be determined by several factors, including the total number
of individuals who sign on to the class action lawsuit, and the
estimated volume of their consumption of the cereals. However, the
preliminary settlement agreement states that "The average cash
award is predicted to be $16.09."

Several online posts in the summer of 2021 also indicated that
proof of purchase was not required in order to take part in the
class action lawsuit. This is also largely accurate.

According to the claim form, applicants must indicate how many
packets of the cereals they habitually bought over a typical
three-month period, and the year in which they began purchasing
them. For applicants who don't have proof of purchase (for example,
supermarket receipts), there is an effective cap of two boxes per
month for Raisin Bran and Frosted Mini-Wheats, and one box per
month of Smart Start. For applicants who do have proof of purchase,
there is no cap to the monthly purchase volume.

Would-be applicants have until Sept. 7, 2021, to fill out an online
or paper application form, and all relevant information can be
found on CerealClaims.com, which is an official and reliable
repository of information, provided by the claims administrator in
this case, Postlethwaite & Nettervile. [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANY FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., MAYBELLINE,
LLC, and NYX LOS ANGELES, INC., Case No. 2021-L-000104, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on July 28,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03175-SEM-TSH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by scanning, collecting,
storing, and using the Plaintiff's biometrics without first
obtaining a written executed release or making disclosures.

L'Oreal U.S.A., Inc. is a cosmetics company based in New York, New
York.

Maybelline, LLC is a cosmetics company based in New York, New
York.

NYX Los Angeles, Inc. is a cosmetics company based in California.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Aaron D. Charfoos, Esq.
         Adam M. Reich, Esq.
         John J. Michels III, Esq.
         PAUL HASTINGS LLP
         71 S. Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 499-6016
         E-mail: aaroncharfoos@paulhastings.com
                 adamreich@paulhastings.com
                 johnmichels@paulhastings.com

LAKE CITY: Faces Green FDCPA Suit in Southern District of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake City Credit,
LLC. The case is captioned as Green v. Lake City Credit, LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-02341 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lee H. Rosenthal.

Lake City is a collection agency in Dallas, Texas. It opened for
business in 1980, has 17 employees, and is managed by Deborah
Southland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic St
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

LEMONADE INC: Scott+Scott Announces Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on July 29
announced the filing of class action litigation against Lemonade,
Inc. ("Lemonade") (NYSE: LMND), alleging violations of consumer
privacy protection laws. If you are a Lemonade customer and have
submitted a video to Lemonade as part of making an insurance claim,
you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

The litigation alleges, among other things, that Lemonade violated
consumer privacy protection laws by collecting, using, and storing
customers' biometric information without sufficient disclosure or
consent.

As part of its insurance claims making process, Lemonade requires
users to submit a short video of themselves describing the basis
for the claim. Lemonade analyzes these videos with facial
recognition technology as part of their claims evaluation. Lemonade
does not fully inform customers that it is collecting their
biometric information, or give them sufficient opportunity to give,
withhold, or retract their consent.

What You Can Do

If you are a Lemonade customer and submitted a video to Lemonade as
part of making an insurance claim, you may have legal claims
against Lemonade. If you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew
at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

            About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

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

Contacts:

Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]

MAGNUM OPUS: Gerstman Sues Over Defective Retrofitted Motorcycles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY GERSTMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAGNUM OPUS CUSTOM BIKES, EZIO COVELLI, ABC
CORP and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 609655/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 29, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of contract, breach of merchant warranty,
fraud in the inducement, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
replevin.

The case arises from the Defendants' sale of a customized
motorcycle with defective conditions. The Plaintiff entered into a
purchase agreement with the Defendants for the retrofitted
motorcycle with assurances that the motorcycle would be safe and
lit to ride and that it would be simple to operate with little in
the way of maintenance and upkeep. However, the Plaintiff
experienced in multiple occasions that the motorcycle stalled or
would not start and at this stage is dead and inoperable. The
Plaintiff contacted the Defendants to ask for full refund but the
Defendants declined, alleges the suit.

Magnum Opus Custom Bikes is a seller of retrofitted motorcycles
with its principal place of business located in Holly Ridge, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                          
         Randy E. Kleinman, Esq.
         GERSTMAN SCHWARTZ, LLP
         1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 880-8170
         E-mail: rkleinman@GerstmanSchwartz.com

MARINE SPILL: Thieroff Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARL THIEROFF and JOSHUA KAHANE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARINE SPILL RESPONSE
CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV18445, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06075 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 overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay reporting time, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages due and
payable twice monthly, failure to pay wages at termination of
employment, and unfair competition.

Marine Spill Response Corporation is an oil spill removal
organization, headquartered in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Howard M. Knee, Esq.
         Caitlin I. Sanders, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 239-3400
         Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
         E-mail: knee@blankrome.com
                 csanders@blankrome.com

MARKPOL DISTRIBUTORS: Collects Staff's Biometrics, Krzak Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON KRZAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARKPOL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2021L000804 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Cir., Dupage Cty., July
29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated and
continues to violate BIPA because it did not and, upon information
and belief, continues not to: (a) properly inform the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their face scan(s) were being collected,
stored, disseminated and used; (b) provide a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the
Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' face scan(s);
(c) receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their face scan(s); and (d) obtain consent from the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information to a third party.

Markpol Distributors, Inc. is a food products supplier located in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
         Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
         Adam Florek, Esq.
         PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
         818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
         St. Louis, MO 63104
         Telephone: (314) 833-4825
         E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 plesko@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com

MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Physicians Healthsource Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource,
Inc. (PHI).

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (District Court) by PHI.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations.

The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages
if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing,
plus interest, costs and injunctive relief.

On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha
Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17,
2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.


On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2019.

On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in part
and denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and
deferring ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission
to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied
on January 24, 2020. Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was
scheduled for June 2, 2020, but on April 1, 2020, the District
Court vacated the trial date and directed the parties to conduct an
in-person mediation.

The mediation has not occurred and no new trial date has been set.


On July 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.

Masimo said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements."

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

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


MEDFORD, MA: Challenges Homelessness Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Morgan, writing for Mail Tribune, reports that the city of
Medford is attempting to prevent a proposed lawsuit surrounding an
alleged "web of ordinances" that criminalize homelessness from
reaching class-action status.

The city claims that petitioners Robert Bessy, Greg Killingsworth,
Amber McNab and Andre Bilodeau -- who are all homeless -- lack
"common issues of law or fact" necessary for the class action
status sought by Medford defense lawyer Justin Rosas and other pro
bono Lawyers for Justice.

Rosas' lawsuit filed May 18 in U.S. District Court in Medford --
and announced in an Alba Park press conference in April -- seeks to
have two Medford municipal codes related to the downtown exclusion
zone and an ordinance that prohibits tent camping in certain
circumstances be declared unconstitutional by the federal court.

The city's 27-page response filed July 15 makes numerous defenses
in an effort to object to the proposed class action, and seeks
dismissal.

The city admitted that Bessy, whose name is spelled "Bessey" in
Medford Municipal Court and Jackson County Circuit Court records,
was excluded from downtown for theft of services after using an
electrical box to charge a phone near the Medford library. However,
the city claims that the exclusion ordinance makes exceptions,
including going to work, medical appointments, court hearings,
religious services or to appeal an exclusion order.

Further, the city states that Bessy never appealed his exclusion
and never sought any variance through Medford Municipal Court.

Bilodeau and McNab, whose name is spelled "MacNab" in city and
court records, have not been excluded from downtown in the past two
years. Any exclusions that occurred prior are beyond the statute of
limitations, the city claimed.

Killingsworth was excluded for 90 days from downtown in 2020 for
bicycle theft.

The city claims that the exclusion ordinance was previously
litigated in Jackson County Circuit Court in summer 2018, when
Judge Benjamin Bloom ruled that, "The ordinance does not infringe
upon the right to free speech, right to travel or the right of
assembly."

The city claims that the Greenway camping ordinance enacted in
April by Medford City Council "is not a city-wide prohibition on
sleeping outside and does not criminalize the status of
homelessness."

Between April 2 and July 15, the ordinance had resulted in only
"three enforcement actions," and that police have otherwise
obtained "voluntary compliance" with the camping ordinance, which
prohibits camping along the Bear Creek Greenway during fire
season.

Citing two dozen city of Medford efforts to address homelessness,
the city disputes Rosas' argument that the city is "trying to run
homeless people out of sight, out of view, out of town or into the
jail."

Those efforts include Hope Village, a tiny house village leased on
city-owned property for $1 per year, "facilitating" the Urban
Campground's creation by working with Oregon Sen. Jeff Golden to
secure $1 million in funding, providing an $87,000 grant to
facilitate Rogue Retreat's creation of the Kelly Shelter in
downtown Medford in 2019, adding city codes that authorize severe
event shelters, creating Medford police's homeless outreach-focused
Livability Team, and adding to the city's Community Services and
Development Commission two voting members with "lived experience"
of homelessness.

The city's response also cites multiple six-figure allocations for
transitional housing projects, including $250,000 to Columbia Care
Services, $250,000 to Youth 71Five Ministries, $150,000 to Hearts
with a Mission and $100,000 to Rogue Valley Transportation District
toward a proposed vandalism resistant "Indestructible Loo."

The response touches on city efforts to bring a program similar to
Lane County's CAHOOTS. Although it hasn't found a community partner
in Medford that "currently has the facilities, ability and
willingness to perform identical services" as those demonstrated by
White Bird Clinic in Eugene, it states it's participating in
multi-partner efforts about how to create a similar program within
Jackson County. [GN]

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces Girgis FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau LLC. The case is captioned as GIRGIS v. MERCANTILE
ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-13909-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J.,
July 20, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi.

Mercantile Adjustment operates as an accounts receivable management
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LEGAL
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

MERRICKDAMON REAL: Teblum Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL TEBLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERRICKDAMON REAL ESTATE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-21-014698 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 23, 2021)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed telephone sales
calls to his cellular telephone number on July 18, 2021 in an
attempt to solicit the sale of its good and/or services. Allegedly,
the Defendant utilized a computer software system that
automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone. The Defendant also did not obtain the Plaintiff's
express written consent to transmit telephone sales calls to his
cellular telephone number using an automated system for the
selection or dialing of telephone number, added the suit.

The complaint further asserts that the Defendant caused similar
telephone sales calls to be sent to individuals residing in Florida
which caused them and the Plaintiff harm, including statutory
damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, and
annoyance.

Merrickdamon Real Estate LLC operates as a real estate broker and
real estate school. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

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


METRO SPEEDGEAR: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccesible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. METRO SPEEDGEAR INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:21-cv-06279-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is visually impaired and
legally blind, in that he has visual acuity with correction of less
than or equal to 20 x 200. Upon visiting Defendant's website,
www.speedgear.com, Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's
failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it
fully accessible for himself and for other blind or
visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the complaint states.

Defendant is a motorsports company doing business in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Uses Third Party to Send Debt Letters, Ceron Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY CERON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04257 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's utilization of a third-party
vendor to convey information regarding the Plaintiff's alleged
debts. The third-party vendor then populated the information into
prewritten templates, printed, and mailed the letters to the
Plaintiff at the Defendant's direction. The Plaintiff never
consented to the Defendant's communication with the third-party
vendor concerning the alleged debts or her personal and/or
confidential information, says the suit.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company, with
its principal place of business in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         David M. Barshay, Esq.
         BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
         445 Broadhollow Road, Suite CL18
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 210-7272
         Facsimile: (516) 706-5055

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hagens Berman Files Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Hagens Berman representing college athletes against
the NCAA and Power Five Conferences in a class-action lawsuit
regarding compensation rights for their names, images and
likenesses (NILs) have filed an amended lawsuit broadening damages
sought and adding new information since the NCAA temporarily
suspended many of its NIL rules.

The amended complaint was filed July 26, 2021, and combines Hagens
Berman's House v. NCAA case and an additional case into one
consolidated action titled In re College Athlete NIL Litigation.
The filing also adds new admissions from the NCAA and other
defendant representatives that allowing NIL is good – a drastic
change from their past statements that allowing NIL would ruin
college sports.

"We're using the same playbook implemented by any successful team:
re-strategize based on what you learn from studying your opponent,
and coordinate your offense," said Steve Berman, managing partner
of Hagens Berman and attorney for the proposed class. "We think
it's important for the court to be aware that the NCAA has abruptly
changed its public stance on NIL rights. NCAA athletes are already
reaping the benefits, which only makes our case stronger."

"We also wanted to make sure that any college athletes receiving
the current NIL deal benefit while the NCAA has temporarily
suspended many of its rules regarding NIL compensation, are also
securely part of this suit," Berman added. "The NCAA has changed
its tactics after college athletes won in Alston, and only then was
the NCAA forced to make concessions."

In June 2021, the court upheld all of the claims brought in Hagens
Berman's case amid the NCAA's motions to dismiss.

The antitrust lawsuit was filed June 15, 2020, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and accuses the NCAA
and conferences of illegally conspiring to limit the compensation
that Division I college athletes may receive for the use of their
NILs and athletic reputations. The complaint says the entities
violated federal antitrust laws in abiding by a particular subset
of NCAA rules that prohibit college athletes from receiving
anything of value in exchange for the commercial use of their NIL.

"Only under the most intense public and legal pressure has the NCAA
adopted a non-permanent, ‘interim' policy change that has, at
long last, permitted many forms of third party NIL compensation to
student-athletes to take place," the complaint states.

"The NCAA was hoping the Supreme Court would adopt its and the
Conferences' arguments that NCAA compensation restraints --
including NIL restraints -- should be immunized from ordinary rule
of reason scrutiny whenever the restraints are ostensibly justified
on the basis of amateurism," according to the lawsuit. "While
waiting for the Supreme Court's decision in Alston, the NCAA
simultaneously continued its efforts to lobby Congress for a
‘safe harbor' from antitrust lawsuits challenging NCAA NIL rules
(including this case). It also continued to keep on hold any
changes in its NIL restraints, even though a number of state NIL
laws were due to go into effect on July 1."

Head-to-Head with the NCAA

In the amended filing, in addition to the expanded damages classes,
the lawsuit highlights numerous examples of what types of NIL deals
student-athletes have been doing since many of the NCAA's NIL rules
were temporarily suspended on July 1, 2021.

The suit states that "thousands of student-athletes have already
taken advantage of the NIL opportunities available to them since
July 1," in partnerships with clothing brands, beverage companies,
restaurants, cell phone companies, video game platforms, and other
national and local retailers. Unilever, for example, plans to spend
$5 million over the next five years in partnerships with college
athletes promoting the deodorant brand Degree, and Alabama's
presumptive starting quarterback has already earned close to $1
million, according to the team's coach.

The suit also draws attention to new admissions from the NCAA and
other defendant representatives of the benefits of allowing
compensation for athletes' NILs. Despite these admissions, the
lawsuit says that the NCAA has kept in place, even under its
"interim" policy, some of the most restrictive aspects of its NIL
rules.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the NCAA accountable to college athletes
via injunction and damages for the NCAA's antitrust violations
regulating the profits gained from the use of college athletes'
names, images and likenesses, specifically:

An injunction voiding rules prohibiting compensation to college
athletes for use of their name, image and likeness.
Damages based on payments college athletes would have received if
not for the NCAA's restraints. These revenues include social media
earnings and revenues from group licenses.
A newly expanded class of damages: a class that will encompass all
student-athletes who get any kind of NIL deal while many of the
NCAA's NIL rules have been temporarily suspended.
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and
its member conferences.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP has represented classes of college
students before, initiating and leading the historic Alston case
where we won a 9-0 win for college athletes, achieving a $208
million settlement against the NCAA concerning antitrust-related
student scholarship limits, a combined $60 million settlement
against Electronic Arts and the NCAA regarding player likeness
rights in videogames, and an additional settlement valued at $75
million regarding concussions and safety protocols and a trial
victory overturning NCAA rules limiting education based
compensation. The firm's sports litigation legal team also includes
former NCAA athletes.

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

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

NCAA: Thomas Seeks Damages Over Football-Related Health Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02080 (S.D. Ind., July 21,
2021), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Thomas played football at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania
from 1988 to 1989, as a linebacker. He suffered from numerous
concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of
routine practice and gameplay. Taylor now suffers from issues
including, but not limited to, short-term memory loss, impulsive
behavior/poor inhibition, depression or suicidal thoughts,
emotional instability, motor impairment, and post-concussion onset
of ADHD.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Thomas alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 554-9099
     Fax: (713  554-9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

            - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 589-6370
     Fax: (312) 589-6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: (415) 212-9300
     Fax: (415) 373-9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEWEGG INC: Shaw Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newegg, Inc. The case
is styled as Brittainy Shaw, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Newegg, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-01128-IM (D. Ore., Aug. 2, 2021).

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

Newegg Commerce, Inc. -- https://www.newegg.com/ -- is an online
retailer of items including computer hardware and consumer
electronics.[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


NIAGARA BOTTLING: Duchimaza Sues Over Mislabeled Recyclable Bottles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELADIA DUCHIMAZA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06434 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for fraud, breach of express warranty, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the New York's General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its bottled water products. The Defendant labeled their products as
"100% Recyclable," but in contrary, the plastic bottles are not
"100% Recyclable" because: (1) the propropylene (PP) bottle caps
and the biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) plastic labels on
the bottles are not recyclable and cannot be processed into usable
material; (2) at least 28% of the polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle caps sent to
recycling centers are lost in processing or are contaminated and
thus end up in landfills or are burned; and (3) domestic recycling
facilities only have the capacity to process approximately 22.5% of
the PET and HDPE consumed in the United States, the suit says.

Niagara Bottling, LLC is a beverage company, with its principal
place of business in Ontario, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com

                 - and –

         Rachel L. Miller, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: rmiller@bursor.com

NORMAN BARWIN: Settles Misconduct Class Action for $13.375 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Pfeffer, writing for CBC News, reports that families who
claim disgraced Ottawa fertility doctor Norman Barwin used the
wrong sperm -- or even his own sperm -- in the conception of at
least 100 children could receive a portion of a
multi-million-dollar payout after a judge certified the
class-action lawsuit launched in 2016.

The Ontario Superior Court certified the class-action suit in the
landmark case at a hearing on July 28, which includes a negotiated
proposed settlement worth $13.375 million.

"While I am aware of a few other doctors in the world who did what
Dr. Barwin did, I am not aware of any other class action or
settlement like this anywhere else in the world," said Peter
Cronyn, the lawyer representing the families.

The class action has grown to 226 members, including former
patients and children conceived through artificial insemination --
17 of whom have discovered Barwin is their biological father
through DNA.

The lead plaintiffs, Dan and Davina Dixon, had sought Barwin's help
to conceive a child together, with their daughter Rebecca born in
1990. Only in recent years did the family learn that Barwin -- not
Dan Dixon -- is Rebecca's biological father.

In 2019, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario stripped
Barwin of his medical licence, finding he had committed
professional misconduct by using his own sperm to inseminate
several patients and using the wrong sperm with many others. Barwin
pleaded no contest at the time and was ordered to pay a fine of
$10,730.

The class-action agreement states the negotiated settlement is not
an admission of wrongdoing by Barwin, who "has denied and continues
to deny all of the plaintiffs' claims in this action," according to
the document certified on July 28.

The document also states Barwin agreed to the negotiated
settlement, concluding "this agreement is desirable in order to
avoid the time, risk and expense of continuing with the
litigation."

Settlement funds would be distributed among claimants according to
"categories of harm," as well as cover legal and administrative
costs. And $75,000 would be set aside to set up and operate a DNA
database for Barwin's patients, sperm donors and the children
conceived, who will all be offered a chance to voluntarily
contribute to the database.

"The primary purpose of the DNA database will be to provide the
children class with the opportunity to identify their biological
fathers, obtain medical health history, and locate half-siblings,"
reads the proposed settlement.

Maximum payout: $50K per claimant
Barwin and his lawyer refused to comment on the proposed
settlement, which calls for compensation as much as $50,000,
depending on the "category of harm" to the individual.

The highest payout is reserved for patients "where they have DNA
evidence showing that the child or children conceived with Dr.
Barwin's assistance, or with semen previously entrusted to Dr.
Barwin, are not the biological child of the man in the couple."

The first child of those patients can receive $40,000, and each
additional child in the same family is "entitled up to a further
$10,000 each, in total."

Patients who entrusted sperm for storage and safekeeping, which
then resulted in the conception of a child for an unrelated
patient, have access to up to $25,000. The children in those cases
can get a maximum of $40,000.

Number of claimants could change
The current payment amounts for each claimant could increase or
decrease depending on how many claimants successfully qualify under
the class action.

Between now and November, members currently signed on can opt out.
For 120 days after November others who qualify can enter the suit,
and the $13,375,000 set aside would get reallocated accordingly.

Cronyn estimates there were probably 500 successful births through
artificial insemination linked to Barwin during the claim period
between 1973 and 2012, so he said there is potential for the number
of claimants to increase beyond the current 226.

The amount negotiated in the proposed settlement came through what
Cronyn called "hard fought" negotiations.

"By the end of the process, we were certain there was no more to be
had and that was the number," he said.

The parties are expected to return to court in November. [GN]

OATLY GROUP: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
Class Period: May 20, 2021 - July 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 24, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OTLY
Contact An Attorney Now: OTLY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Oatly Group AB (OTLY) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges Oatly (1) inflated its gross margins,
revenue, and capital expenditure financial metrics, (2) overstated
the proprietary nature of its formulas and manufacturing process,
and (3) exaggerated its success in China ("PRC").

The company's financial metrics and sustainability claims were
brought into question when, on July 14, 2021, analyst Spruce Point
Capital Management published a scathing report accusing the company
of a variety of potential accounting improprieties, misrepresenting
its sustainability practices, and misrepresenting its PRC growth
story.

Among other things, Spruce Point highlights "signs of revenue
overstatement," claims revenue overstatement is verified by a key
Oatly U.S manager, and points to a divergence between accounts
receivable growth and sales growth that the analyst says suggests
"a pull forward of revenue recognition."

As to Oatly's claimed sustainability practices, Spruce Point noted
the company's production generates dangerous levels of wastewater,
it is out of compliance with EPA regulations, and it sources cocoa
from a company criticized for deforestation and endangerment of
species in Africa.

Spruce Point also said Oatly has exaggerated the size of its PRC
market and the analyst's investigator observed a PRC facility that
is unlikely to be operational soon.

Spruce Point called for Oatly's board of directors to hire an
independent forensic accountant to investigate such matters.

In response, the price of Oatly American Depositary Shares fell
sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving defendants
misstated Oatly's financial metrics, greenwashed, and
misrepresented its PRC growth story," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

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

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

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]

OATLY GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY)
between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than September 24, 2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Oatly 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 Oatly class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2130.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 September 24,
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, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. 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) overinflated its gross margins,
revenue, and capital expenditure financial metrics; (2) overstated
the proprietary nature of its formulas and manufacturing process;
(3) exaggerated its success in China; and (4) as a result, the
Company's 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 Oatly class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2130.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:
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
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 17 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 Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN),
CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ), and RenovaCare, Inc. (Other OTC:
RCAR). 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.

Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN)

Class Period: February 2, 2021 to June 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021

On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it planned to submit to the
FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for COVAXIN,
a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen
announced that it "will no longer pursue an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to "pursue
submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although we were close to finalizing our EUA application
for submission, we received a recommendation from the FDA to pursue
a BLA path," and that "this will extend our timelines."

Shares of Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the
same day, based on this news.

On June 10, 2021, the Company said it would no longer pursue a EUA
for Covaxin and would instead aim to file for a full U.S. approval
of the shot.

On this news, the stock price plummeted and closed on June 11, 2021
at $6.69 per share, representing a 25.17% drop from the June 10,
2021 closing price of $9.31 per share.

The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the information that Ocugen submitted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to
support an EUA; (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and
(iii) as a result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as
defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ)

Class Period: December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79, or 8.5%, to
close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the next
two consecutive trading sessions by $0.62, or 7.3%, to close at
$7.83 per share on March 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross
profit per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company
had expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500 but reported
$1,182.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to
close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $0.45, or 8%,
to close at $4.12 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less
than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced"
during second quarter 2021 to date.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to
close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due to a
surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz
was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing and
higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's gross
profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize
returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for
more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering
aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz's gross profit
per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this Company's
corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments
to the Company due to market conditions, including increasing
wholesale prices; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

RenovaCare, Inc. (Other OTC: RCAR)

Class Period: August 14, 2017 to May 28, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2021

On May 28, 2021, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that
RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud.
According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January
2018, the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel
Rayat ("Rayat"), "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a
promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock
price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the
promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel
payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal
RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets Group,
Inc. requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the
promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then
drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained
material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the
company's involvement in the promotion."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on
June 2, 2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, at the direction of Rayat, RenovaCare engaged
in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (2) that, when the
OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially
false and misleading press release claiming that no director,
officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the
purported third party's promotional materials; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures were defective; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

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

                  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]

OCUGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)

Class Period: February 2, 2021 - June 10, 2021

Deadline: August 17, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/ocgn.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the information submitted to the FDA was
insufficient to support an EUA, (2) Ocugen would not file an
Emergency Use Authorization with the FDA, (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ:TEDU)

Class Period: August 16, 2016 - November 1, 2019

Deadline: August 23, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/tedu.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and 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.

Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT)

Class Period: Home Pointsecurities common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021, initial public
offering (the 'IPO' or 'Offering')

Deadline: August 20, 2021

For more info:www.bgandg.com/hmpt.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Offering Documents
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners
would dramatically increase the Company's expenses; (2) the
mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased
gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021
and Home Point would be subject to the same competitive pressures;
(3) accordingly, the Company had overstated its business and
financial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

CONTACT:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Tesetaxel Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit related to tesetaxel, is pending.

On September 16, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of stockholders of the Company against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's current and
former Chief Financial Officers. The complaint was last amended on
April 13, 2021.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California and alleges that the Company made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety and
tolerability of tesetaxel in the Company's public statements in
violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit seeks damages allegedly sustained by the class and an
award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and that
it has substantive defenses to the claims of liability and
damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 13,
2021, and on June 26, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motion to dismiss.

Odonate said, "Due to the early stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company dedicated to
the development of best-in-class therapeutics that improve and
extend the lives of patients with cancer. The company's initial
focus is on the development of tesetaxel, an investigational,
orally administered chemotherapy agent that belongs to a class of
drugs known as taxanes, which are widely used in the treatment of
cancer. The company is based in New York, New York.


OSAKA COURT: Guarcax Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
SABINO TUY GUARCAX, MOISES CHOPEN-GUARCAX, and JUAN COJTIN JULAJUJ,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. OSAKA COURT
STREET INC. d/b/a OSAKA JAPANESE CUISINE, QING SONG JIANG, and QING
FENG JIANG, Case No. 1:21-cv-04208 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) seeks
to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying her and other
similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time
and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the
supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

The Defendants hired the Plaintiffs to work as a non-exempt food
preparer/kitchen helper, food delivery person, dishwasher, and
porter at the Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

POLARIS INC: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling in Johannessohn Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is awaiting the Eighth
Circuit's decision on the appeal on the denial of class
certification in Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley,
Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries
(D.Minn.).

A putative class action is also pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive
heat hazards on Sportsman ATV, seeking damages for alleged economic
loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin
Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.),
October 4, 2016.

On March 31, 2020, the district court judge denied class
certification.

The plaintiffs appealed denial of class certification to the Eighth
Circuit.

The Court heard oral arguments on April 13, 2021.

Polaris said, "We are awaiting the Court's decision."

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


POLARIS INC: Dismissal of Claims in Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the putative class action
suit entitled, In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), is pending.

A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations
that certain Polaris products suffer from purportedly unresolved
fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the
result of the consolidation of the three putative class actions
that were filed between April 5-10, 2018 and that the company
disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018.

On February 26, 2020, the district court dismissed the majority of
plaintiffs and claims.

Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the remaining
plaintiffs and have appealed to the Eight Circuit on behalf of the
Court dismissed plaintiffs. The Court heard oral arguments on May
11, 2021.

Polaris said, "We are awaiting the Court's decision."

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


POLARIS INC: Dismissal of Guzman, Albright Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the court's order granting summary
judgment and dismissing the claims of the plaintiffs in Paul Guzman
and Jeremy Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and
Polaris Sales Inc., has been appealed.

A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and alleges violations
of various California consumer protection laws focused on rollover
protection systems' certifications, for various Polaris off-road
vehicles sold in California: Paul Guzman and Jeremy Albright v.
Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc.,
August 8, 2019.

Fact discovery has now closed while expert discovery and motion
practice continues.

On May 12, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


POLARIS INC: Faces Hellman Putative Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a putative class
action suit entitled, Michael Hellman, Francisco Berlanga, Tim
Artoff, Cy Mitchell and Jonathan Lollar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries Inc. (DE),
Polaris Sales Inc. and Polaris Industries Inc. (MN).

A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California and alleges violations
of various California consumer protection laws focused on rollover
protection systems' certifications, for various Polaris off-road
vehicles sold in California, Oregon, Nevada and Texas: Michael
Hellman, Francisco Berlanga, Tim Artoff, Cy Mitchell and Jonathan
Lollar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries Inc. (DE), Polaris Sales Inc. and Polaris
Industries Inc. (MN) (E.D. Cal.), May 25, 2021.

The Hellman class action was brought by the same plaintiffs'
counsel as in the Paul Guzman and Jeremy Albright v. Polaris Inc.,
Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc. case and is based
on substantially similar allegations.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


PORSCHE CARS: Faces Ferry Suit Over Vehicle Parts Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FERRY; and MOANA HANA FERRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-05715 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to accurately and comprehensively identify the
vehicle parts that should properly be classified as "high-cost
emissions warranty parts" under California's emission control
system warranty requirements and covered under the emissions
warranty for 7-years and 70,000 miles.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that in order to minimize
the Defendant's warranty exposure, the Defendant has unilaterally
limited the parts that should be covered under the emissions
warranty for 7-years and 70,000 miles, including the parts
specifically identified by the Plaintiffs.

By not comprehensively identifying the parts that should be
included as "high-cost" warranty parts, the Defendant is able to
limit the warranty coverage for those parts to only 4-years and
50,000 miles, says the suit.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is headquartered in the United
States. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
new and used automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wants Charcoal Toothpaste Class Action Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Procter & Gamble Co. is pushing a New York
federal court to dismiss a suit alleging the company misled
consumers about the safety and effectiveness of its
charcoal-infused Crest whitening toothpastes, saying the proposed
class action fails to show the products are unfit for consumers.
[GN]


REPAIR FLORIDA: Faces Botha Suit Over Repairmen's Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEJAN J. BOTHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REPAIR FLORIDA NOW, INC. and SHAWN S.
ROSSBACH, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-61559-AHS (S.D. Fla., July
29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated repairmen overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a repairman from
March 22, 2021, to May 14, 2021.

Repair Florida Now, Inc. is general contractor specializing in home
remodeling, home repair, and maintenance located in David, Florida.
[BN]

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

RHMT LLC: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RHMT, LLC. The case
is styled as Shay-Ryan Jones, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RHMT, LLC, a limited liability company; Stat Team, Inc.
a Texas Corporation; Does 1 through 10, Inclusive; Case No.
CGC21593344 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 2, 2021).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

RHMT, LLC doing business as The Apothecarium --
https://apothecarium.com/ -- is a full-service recreational and
medical cannabis dispensary.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seung L. Yang, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com


RIKO WIEMER: Pfau Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY PFAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIKO WIEMER INTERNATIONAL, LLC; RIKO WIEMER;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV27719
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including unpaid
wages, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, unreimbursed
business expenses, wages not timely paid upon termination, unlawful
and unfair business practices, retaliation, and wrongful
termination.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a piano instructor and
assistant from approximately October 2015 through November 2020.

Riko Wiemer International, LLC is a musical instruments business
located in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
         BANNER LAW GROUP, P.C.
         11755 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1250
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (323) 426-2991
         Facsimile: (323) 426-2975
         E-mail: Arnab@bannerlawgroup.com

ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Sanchez Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE FRANCISCO SANCHEZ and JOSE ANTONIO REYES, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and ROADRUNNER
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00890, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on July 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00893-LA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to reimburse
the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated delivery drivers
for all necessarily incurred business expenses in violation of the
California Labor Code and unfair competition pursuant to the
California Business and Professions Code.

Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc. is a truck freight
transportation services provider, with its principal place of
business in Wisconsin.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is a provider of truck
freight transportation services, with its principal place of
business in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
         David Pogrel, Esq.
         Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
         LEONARD CARDER, LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 272-0169
         Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
         E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                 dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
                 golmedo@leonardcarder.com

SIRIUS XM: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the Flo &
Eddie initiated class action, remains stayed.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media, LLC (Pandora) in the federal district court
for the Central District of California.

The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 (referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings").


On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took
steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making
the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of
pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in
the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth
Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, Inc. case.

On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the
MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's
performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered
factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In October 2020, the District Court denied Pandora's renewed motion
to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding
the case no longer qualified for anti-SLAPP due to intervening
changes in the law, and denied Pandora's renewed attempt to end the
case. Alternatively, the District Court ruled that the preemption
defense likely did not apply to Flo & Eddie's claims, in part
because the District Court believed that the MMA did not apply
retroactively.

Pandora promptly appealed the District Court's decision to the
Ninth Circuit, and moved to stay appellate briefing pending the
appeal of a related case against Sirius XM.

On January 13, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the
stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related
case against Sirius XM.

Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this action
vigorously."

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited-run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SMARTYPANTS INC: Foster Sues Over Multivitamins' Deceptive Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA FOSTER and JENNIFER SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMARTYPANTS, INC.,
d/b/a SMARTYPANTS HEALTHY MINDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-06430 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of the New York's General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
SmartyPants multivitamins. The Defendant labeled its multivitamins
as "Complete" and "Essential," but contrary to these
representations, the products fail to contain a number of essential
nutrients, including vitamin K, riboflavin (vitamin B-2), and
niacin (vitamin B-3). As a result of the Defendant's false,
misleading, and deceptive statements and representations of fact,
the Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and continue to suffer,
economic injury, the suit alleges.

SmartyPants, Inc., doing business as SmartyPants Healthy Minds,
Inc., is a manufacturer of multivitamins located in Marina Del Ray,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jvenditti@bursor.com

                - and –

         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Borges Sues Over Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO BORGES, individually and on behalf of all, others
similarly situated, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, Case No. 131037173
(Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 20, 2021) is a class action under
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Defendant is an international orthodontic device company that
specializes in teeth alignment products. It offers its products to
consumers on-line.

To promote its goods and services, Defendant allegedly engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA.

The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant.

SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. The company was
co-founded in 2014 by Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court of appeals
dismissed the appeal of the remaining objectors for lack of
jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the
settlements was not a final appealable order.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the
Central District of California, the Northern District of
California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of
Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of
Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District
of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of
Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New
York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of
North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of
Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized
the cases to the United States District Court in the District of
Columbia.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to
settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who
purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1,
2011, to the date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the
proposed settlement class. The Court held a fairness hearing on
March 22, 2019, and it issued an order granting final approval of
the settlement on May 9, 2019.

On June 10, 2019, three sets of objectors filed notices of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Two sets of the objectors dismissed their appeals.

On July 9, 2021, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal of the
remaining objectors for lack of jurisdiction because the district
court's order approving the settlements was not a final appealable
order.

The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants. The Company
denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Texas Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion seeking to
dismiss the putative class action suit before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas remains
pending.

On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal
securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.


A lead plaintiff has been appointed in the case, and an amended
complaint was filed on July 2, 2020.

The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2017, and January 29, 2020. The amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material
misstatements to investors regarding the Company's safety and
maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations
and requirements.

The amended complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

On August 17, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed a reply on or about October 21, 2020, such that
the motion is now fully briefed, although the parties have each
supplemented their prior briefing with regard to more recent case
holdings in other matters.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those
in the amended complaint.

Southwest Airlines said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs'
positions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself."

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Ongoing in Boeing MAX Defect Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit related to the company's concealment of
defects in the Boeing MAX aircraft.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to
conceal defects with the MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts
related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts. The
complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers
who purchased tickets for air travel from either the Company or
American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary
relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs. On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint and to strike certain class allegations.
Boeing also moved to dismiss.

On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted
in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint.

The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without
prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in
response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the
remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud
by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the
grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found
that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the
plaintiffs' theories of RICO injury. The order denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to two RICO claims premised upon a second
theory of RICO injury and denied the motion to strike the class
allegations at the pleadings stage.

Discovery is ongoing, class certification briefing has been
completed, and a class certification hearing was held before the
court on April 26, 2021.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those
in the complaint that were not dismissed.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SPROUT SOCIAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Orbegoso Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN ORBEGOSO and JENNIFER ROGERS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPROUT SOCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03928 (N.D Ill., July 23, 2021) bring
this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking
to recover overtime compensation and other damages and relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Obregoso was employed by the Defendant as Sales
Development Representative from approximately July 2017 to April
2018 and as a Corporate Business Development Representative from
approximately May 2018 through April 2019. Plaintiff Rogers was
employed by the Defendant from approximately April 2017 to June
2017 as a Sales Development Representative and from approximately
July 2017 through June 2018 as a Corporate Business Development
Representative.

The Plaintiffs claim that after the Defendant reclassified them and
other similarly situated Sales Representatives as non-exempt, they
were not paid the correct overtime compensation for hours they have
worked in excess of 40 per week from approximately January 24, 2019
through August 23, 2020. The Defendant allegedly failed to include
non-discretionary bonuses and commissions in their regular rate
when calculating their overtime rate. As a result, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they were no paid
accurate overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

Sprout Social, Inc. provides an all-in-one social media management
platform. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dwerman@flsalaw.com

STABLE ROAD: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SRAC)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Oct. 7, 2020 - July 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 13, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SRAC
Contact An Attorney Now: SRAC@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (SRAC) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

The Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts about Stable Road's acquisition target, Momentus, a
company that purports to operate in the commercial space industry.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in connection with the
SPAC merger, Defendants falsely represented that Momentus
"successfully tested" its key technology in space when, in fact,
the tests were not successful. The Complaint also alleges that
Defendants concealed that Momentus' CEO Mikhail Kokorich presented
a national security risk. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that
Defendants misrepresented and concealed the shoddy due diligence
Stable Road conducted on Momentus.

The truth began to emerge on Jan. 25, 2021, when Momentus announced
the abrupt resignation of Kokorich as CEO.

Then, on July 13, 2021, the SEC announced charges against Stable
Road, Momentus, Kokorich and others for making "misleading claims
about Momentus' technology and about national security risks
associated with Kokorich." The release stated that all parties
other than Kokorich had settled the charges against them for $8
million in total, while the case against Kokorich continued. The
same day, SEC also publicized a cease-and-desist order and
complaint against Kokorich, which detailed Defendants' scheme to
defraud investors in connection with the Momentus SPAC merger.

These disclosures caused the price of Stable Road securities to
decline sharply, injuring investors.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Stable Road,
Momentus and other insiders lied about Momentus' key technology and
concealed the national security risks posed by Kokorich," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Stable Road and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]

STABLE ROAD: Thornton Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. securities (NASDAQ: SRAC) (NASDAQ: SRACW)
(NASDAQ: SRACU) between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021 may seek
to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff. Interested
investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection
team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/StableRoad for more
information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors of Stable Road. Investors do not need to be the Lead
Plaintiff to recover as class members if the case is successful.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/StableRoad.

The case alleges that Stable Road and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma
thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal
pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype
that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts
of thrust; (ii) the U.S. government had conveyed that it considered
Momentus's CEO, defendant Mikhail Kokorich, a national security
threat, which jeopardized Kokorich's continued leadership of
Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business prospects;
(iii) consequently, the revenue projections and business and
operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and the
commercial viability and timeline of its products were materially
false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and
(iv) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of
Momentus and its business operations and defendants had materially
misrepresented the due diligence activities being conducted by
Stable Road executives and its sponsor in connection with the
merger.

Interested Stable Road investors have until September 13, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/StableRoad [GN]


STABLE ROAD: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Sept. 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 28 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SRAC) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Stable Road securities between
October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

All investors who purchased Stable Road Acquisition Corp. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. you may, no later than September 13, 2021,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your
rights as an investor in Stable Road Acquisition Corp.

On October 7, 2020, Stable Road and Momentus, a private commercial
space company, issued a joint press release announcing that Stable
Road had agreed to acquire Momentus in a proposed merger, subject
to shareholder approval. The press release stated that the merger
would "create the first publicly traded space infrastructure
company at the forefront of the new space economy."

On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that defendant Kokorich had
resigned as Momentus CEO "in an effort to expedite the resolution
of U.S. government national security and foreign ownership concerns
surrounding the Company." On this news, the price of Stable Road
Class A stock fell 19% over three trading days, to close at $20.10
per share on January 27, 2021.

Subsequently, on July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") announced charges against Stable Road, its CEO,
defendant Brian Kabot, SRC-NI Holdings, Momentus, and defendant
Kokorich for making "misleading claims about Momentus's technology
and about national security risks associated with Kokorich." The
release stated that all parties, other than defendant Kokorich, had
settled the charges against them for $8 million in total, while the
case against defendant Kokorich continued. Additionally, on July
13, 2021, the SEC publicized a cease-and-desist order and complaint
against defendant Kokorich which detailed defendants' scheme to
defraud investors in connection with the merger.

On this news, on July 14, 2021, the price of Stable Road Class A
stock fell $1.22 per share, or 10%, to close at $10.66 per share.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

SUNRISE GROUPS: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ritchie Diaz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunrise Groups, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-03259, (E.D. Pa., July 21, 2021) seeks monetary damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and other equitable and
ancillary relief for failure to pay the mandated overtime wages for
all hours worked over forty hours per workweek in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
including unauthorized deductions from paychecks in violation of
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Diaz was employed by Sunrise as a Cable and Fiber Technician from
April 15, 2020 until September 1, 2020. He typically worked 6 days
per week and worked approximately seventy-eight hours per workweek
but was not paid at the overtime rate. In addition, Sunrise
routinely made deductions from Plaintiff's wages for allegedly not
performing the required quality of work for its clients, asserts
the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Salvina, Esq.
     MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
     Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
     1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 273-1054
     Fax: (215) 525-0210
     Email: bsalvina@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


TENCHA LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tencha, LLC. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Tencha, LLC doing
business as: Matcha Kari, Case No. 1:21-cv-04326 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2,
2021).

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

Matcha Kari -- https://matcha.com/ -- seeks to source and provide
the world's best matcha tea, build lifetime relationships, and
share matcha culture.[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


TENNESSEE: Gov. Has Yet to Respond to Unemployment Benefits Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Case, writing for WZTV, reports that Governor Bill Lee and
Tennessee Labor Commissioner Jeff McCord have 20 days to respond to
a class-action lawsuit signed by a judge on July 28.

The lawsuit asks the governor and McCord to reinstate federal
unemployment benefits.

FOX 17 News first broke this development when attorney Gary
Blackburn signed on to represent "Tennesseans Against Ending
Federal Unemployment Early."

He explained he would ask for federal unemployment to be reinstated
and that those who qualify be reimbursed retroactively for the
weeks they've missed.

"If they're entitled to this money then any money that was not paid
then that would be money they would be entitled to get a judgment
for, Yes, that's what we would ask for," Blackburn said.

This makes Tennessee the seventh state sued over this. People in
two other states have sued and won.

Gov. Lee has said he will not reinstate federal unemployment
despite the litigation. [GN]


THAMESLINK RAILWAY: Faces Unfair Pricing Suit  From Campaigners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that two rail travel campaigners have filed a
proposed class action against the Thameslink rail service, saying
that passengers have lost out because of the company's unfair
pricing on the route through London. [GN]



TOYOTA MOTOR: Bazzano Sues Over Deceptive Product Representations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MITCHELL BAZZANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01849-JKB (D. Md., July 23, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA),
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
and unjust enrichment.

Because he valued attributes of performance, comfort, and
reliability, the Plaintiff has purchased the Defendant's Supra
sports coupe. Accordingly, there have been numerous recalls on the
Supra since its reintroduction in 2019, However, Supra owners are
unable to have their vehicles serviced and repaired. This is caused
by the Defendant's sale of the product without necessary support
system in place to account for customary issues faced by owners.
Specifically, the Plaintiff has experienced delays of over 6 months
for his Supra to be repaired, which is not what he has expected
that a company which sells cars can promptly and efficiently
service and repair them. The Plaintiff would not have purchased or
would have paid less, if he knew of these issues, says the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresented the
Product through statements, omissions, ambiguities, half-truths
and/or actions. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Supra owners relied on the Defendant's false and deceptive
representations. As a result, they suffered damages.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated Supra owners seeking monetary damages,
statutory damages, litigation costs and expenses and reasonable
attorneys and experts fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunctive relief to
remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices and
representations, and restitution and disgorgement for members of
the class pursuant to the applicable laws.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the North American Toyota
sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United
States market. It manufactures, markets and sells the Supra sports
coupe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


U & U LLC: Underpays Fast Food Employees, Morgan Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
TASHNA MORGAN f/k/a TASHNA WALKER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U & U LLC d/b/a GOLDEN
KRUST, and MOHAMMAD RAMZAN, Defendants, Case No. 716740/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., July 23, 2021) brings this complaint seeking for damages
and other legal an equitable relief against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the New York State Labor Law, the New
York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2018 through July 2021 as a Fast Food employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully and
intentionally failed to pay him and other similarly situated Fast
Food employees the minimum wage at the federally mandated minimum
wage rate. The Plaintiff claims that he was only paid an hourly
rate below the minimum wage for a fast food employee.

U & U LLC and Mohammad Ramzan own and operate a fast food chain
Golden Krust franchises. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Tel: (516) 742-4949
          E-mail: mark@bglawny.com

UNITED PARCEL: John Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHEILA JOHN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-591395, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 28, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-05804 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 lawful wages owed, failure to provide
lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages due
at termination, knowing and intentional failure to comply with
itemized employee wage statement provisions, failure to indemnify
employees for expenditures, and unfair business practices.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping
and receiving and supply chain management company, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
         Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
         Alma Pinan, Esq.
         GBG LLP
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 603-5000
         Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
         E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                 jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                 almapinan@gbgllp.com

UNITED STATES: USCIS Settles Class Action Over OPT Delays
---------------------------------------------------------
The Quint reports that the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services on 26 July, reached a settlement with
plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief from delays in
Optional Practical Training (OPT) adjudication.

The USCIS denied all allegations but agreed to offer interim relief
to the plaintiffs, adding that the negotiations were carried out in
"good faith". The terms of the consent order will also benefit the
putative class -- others affected by the same issues as the
plaintiffs, reported The Times of India.

What is The Law Suit About?
The OPT or the Optional Practical Training is a 1992 law that
allows those on academic study or F-1 visas to work in the US for a
year after their graduation in order to gain experience in their
chosen field. The 2016 order allows this OPT time to be extended
for another 24 months for students in the STEM fields -- that is,
science, technology, engineering and math.

The class action suit was filed in October 2020, when the USCIS
allegedly slowed or stopped the processing of OPT and STEM
extension applications which affected a lot of International
students, including those from India.

Eighteen plaintiffs, who are students on the F-1 visa, and have
applied, or will apply, for permission to stay in the US on
completion of their formal studies for OPT, alleged that "USCIS
slowed and/or stopped processing applications, causing the named
plaintiffs and other similarly-situated students (who are referred
to as unnamed or putative class members) to potentially be removed
from the US when the grace period following their education program
ends, as well as to lose job offers, income, health insurance, and
lose their opportunities to register for the H-1B lottery".

What Interim Relief Has Been Granted?
1. For the applications for OPT and STEM extensions filed before 31
October, the USCIS will process them within 120 days.

2. Rejected applicants can reapply.

3. Requests for evidence will be issued instead of rejecting an
application for missing signatures.

4. Applications can be submitted up to 120 days before completion
of the program if the application is made before 31 October.

5. 12 months of OPT has to be completed within 14 months from the
date of graduation.

6. A monthly report has to be submitted to the plaintiffs' lawyers
regarding the data and status of applications and aggregate data of
the cases that have not been approved.

7. The same relief has to be provided to the putative class or
others in the same situation. It continues for all cases filed
between 1 October, 2020 and 31 October 2021.

What Are The Terms of Settlement?
The settlement was signed on the terms that the parties mutually
release their claims and that the consent order remain binding
irrespective of what any court of law might take up into
consideration.

The USCIS also maintained that the consent order should not be
considered an admission of guilt and it cannot be used in the
future as an evidence of guilt against the agency.

The order should be deemed as final and supersedes any oral or
previous communication. [GN]

WEINGARTEN REALTY: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Coffman Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE COFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS;
ANDREW M. ALEXANDER; STANFORD J. ALEXANDER; SHELAGHMICHAEL C.
BROWN; STEPHEN A. LASHER; THOMAS L. RYAN; DOUGLAS W. SCHNITZER; C.
PARK SHAPER; and MARC J. SHAPIRO, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-CV-05399 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2021) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff against Weingarten Realty Investors ("Weingarten" or
the "Company") and the members of Weingarten's Board of Trust
Managers (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Weingarten will be acquired by Kimco Realty
Corporation ("Kimco") (the "Proposed Transaction").

On April 15, 2021, Weingarten and Kimco issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated April 15, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement") to sell
Weingarten to Kimco. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
Weingarten stockholder will receive: (i) 1.408 newly issued shares
of Kimco common stock; and (ii) $2.89 in cash for each share of
Weingarten common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").

On a pro forma basis, following the closing of the Proposed
Transaction, Kimco shareholders are expected to own approximately
71% of the combined company's equity, and Weingarten shareholders
are expected to own approximately 29%. The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $3.87 billion.

On May 28, 2021, Kimco filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement (as
amended, the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The
Registration Statement, which recommends that Weingarten
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the Company's and Kimco's financial projections and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial
advisor J.P. Morgan & Co. LLC ("J.P. Morgan"); and (ii) the
background of the Proposed Transaction. Defendants authorized the
issuance of the false and misleading Registration Statement in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In short, unless remedied, Weingarten's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction, says the suit.

Weingarten Realty Investors is a real estate investment trust with
income producing properties primarily in the Southwest. The Trust
properties include shopping centers, office and service centers,
apartment projects, and office buildings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

[*] Securities Action Filings Down in First Half of 2020
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin of Cornerstone Research, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that overall securities class
action filing activity dropped considerably in the first half of
2021, falling to 112 filings from 150 filings in the second half of
2020. This decline was largely driven by a substantial reduction in
the number of M&A class actions and federal and state 1933 Act
filings, although core filings with Section 10(b) allegations were
also down modestly.

Filings in the first half of 2021 were generally smaller, resulting
in lower MDL and DDL indices. DDL fell 50% from $162 billion in
2020 H2 to $80 billion in 2021 H1. Similarly, MDL fell 64% from
$991 billion in 2020 H2 to $361 billion in 2021 H1.

Special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) IPOs have continued to
explode. Filings against SPAC-related entities increased sharply in
the first half of 2021. There were also 10 filings related to
COVID-19, largely concentrated in the first four months of the
year.

Number and Size of Filings
Plaintiffs filed 112 new class action securities cases (filings)
across federal and state courts in 2021 H1, down 25% relative to
2020 H2. This decline was largely driven by a sharp drop in M&A
filings. Of the 112 filings, 100 were core filings.

The number of state filings with causes of action under the
Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) in 2021 H1 was dramatically lower
than in 2018 H1–2020 H1, continuing the 2020 H2 trend. Federal
Section 11 filings also fell sharply in 2021 H1.

Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) decreased 64% to $361 billion from the
near-record high of $991 billion in 2020 H2, only slightly above
the 1997–2020 semiannual average of $351 billion. Three Oil and
Gas filings accounted for 38% of total MDL.

Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) decreased 50% from $162 billion in the
second half of 2020 to
$80 billion in the first half of 2021.

Other Measures of Filing Intensity
In the first half of 2021, the likelihood of a filing against a
U.S. exchange-listed company decreased to an annualized rate of
4.2%. This would be the lowest rate since 2014.

Filings fell 25% in the first half of the year, largely driven by a
66% decline in M&A filing activity relative to the second half of
2020.

Key Trends in Federal Filings
Despite the substantial decrease in federal filings overall, there
were twice as many federal SPAC filings in the first half of 2021
as there were in all of 2020. COVID-19 filings were largely
concentrated in the first four months of 2021 and have declined
since.

Filings against non-U.S. companies fell dramatically from the
record high in 2020. Only 16% of core federal filings were against
non-U.S. issuers.

M&A Filings
There were 12 federal M&A filings in the first half of 2021, the
fewest in the federal courts since the second half of 2014. M&A
filings declined 66% relative to the second half of 2020 and
declined 83% relative to the semiannual average over the past five
years.

Filings in the Ninth Circuit accounted for 58% of all M&A filings
in the first half of 2021.

SPAC Filings
There were 14 federal SPAC filings in the first half of 2021, twice
the number of such filings in all of 2020. All 14 filings included
Section 10(b) claims.

The median filing lag for core federal SPAC filings over the last
three years was roughly four and a half months.

Consumer Cyclical core federal SPAC filings made up half of all
core federal SPAC filings in 2021 H1 (seven filings). Six of these
were against companies in the automotive industry.

Trend Cases
COVID-19-related filings were largely concentrated in the first
four months of 2021. Allegations included misrepresentations about
COVID-19 treatments or vaccines that failed to make it to market as
well as the effects of COVID-19 on business operations.

Other trend-related filings (e.g., those involving cannabis
companies or stemming from the opioid epidemic) continued to
decline.

Non-U.S. Issuers
Only 16% (15 of 96) of core federal filings were against non-U.S.
issuers in 2021 H1, the lowest rate observed since 2009.

The number of federal filings against non-U.S. issuers is on track
to be only 41% of what it was in 2020, when it reached a record
high of 74 filings.

Of core federal filings against non-U.S. issuers, 60% were against
Asian firms, the largest share in any semiannual period since 2015
H1.

U.S. Issuers
Core federal filings against companies listed on major U.S.
exchanges in 2021 occurred at an annualized rate of 3.8%, which
would be the lowest rate since 2015.

By Industry
Financial sector filings declined in the first half of 2021
compared to the previous semiannual period, with the number of
filings decreasing by 31%, and DDL decreasing by 96%.

The Consumer Cyclical sector (16 filings) returned to the high
level of activity seen in 2020 H1 (17 filings), after decreasing in
2020 H2 to levels that were in line with the historical average.

By Circuit
Ninth Circuit filings decreased 35% from 43 filings in the second
half of 2020 to 28 filings in the first half
of 2021.

There were no core filings in the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, or D.C.
Circuits.

Combined Federal and State Filing Activity
Federal M&A filings continued to drop precipitously in 2021 H1
relative to 2020 H2 and other recent semiannual periods, a trend
noted in the Securities Class Action Filings—2020 Midyear
Assessment and Securities Class Action Filings—2020 Year in
Review.

The decline in Section 11 and 1933 Act filings in the first half of
2021 relative to 2020 H2 was concentrated in federal-only and
parallel filings, which dropped from a combined 11 filings in 2020
H2 to only seven filings in 2021 H1. State-only 1933 Act filings
remained at the low levels observed in 2020 H2. (See Figure 13)

The decline in Section 11 and 1933 Act filings in 2021 is even more
notable considering that Section 11 filings in 2020 had already
declined 45% compared to 2019

Other core federal filings—those excluding Section 11 and state
1933 Act filings—are on pace to be only 11% fewer than their 2020
totals.

In 2021 H1, federal M&A filings were just 12% of their total in all
of 2020 and are on pace to be at their lowest level since 2014.

Number of Federal and State Filings
There were 112 filings in the first half of 2021, the lowest number
since 2015 H1. The primary reason for the overall reduction in
filing activity in the first half of the year was the decline in
M&A and federal Section 11 and state 1933 Act filings.

Semiannual M&A filings fell to the lowest level since 2014 H2—a
66% decrease in M&A filings from 2020 H2 to 2021 H1. This 2021
figure represents an 83% decrease from the semiannual M&A filing
average over the last five years.

Merger deal activity, however, increased in the first half of 2021.
According to FactSet MergerMetrics, the number of non-withdrawn
mergers with a transaction value greater than $100 million and with
a public company target traded on the NYSE or Nasdaq rose from 88
with announcement dates in 2020 H2 to 111 with announcement dates
in 2021 H1.

Total filing activity dropped 25% in 2021 H1 relative to 2020 H2,
and was below the 1997–2020 average.

As discussed in Figures 11 and 13, the overall decline in filings
is also explained by a drop in federal Section 11 and state 1933
Act filing activity. From 2020 H2 to 2021 H1, the number of federal
Section 11 and state 1933 Act filings dropped 27%; federal-only
Section 11 filings dropped 33%. State-only 1933 Act filings
remained at the low levels observed in 2020 H2. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***