/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210809.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 152

                            Headlines

291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers
3M COMPANY: Axe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Braud Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Coomer Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Goodwin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Hamilton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Iochum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Kenny Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Rice Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Rogers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Settlement in Suit Over PFOA in Drinking Water Pending
3M COMPANY: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Teller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Toney Bid for Class Certification Tossed
AMAZON.COM INC: Flores Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. Ill.
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings
AMAZON.COM: Kryzhanovskiy Slams Gender Discrimination

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Galeas Claims
APACHE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Discloses Securities Class Action
ARCH INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Gordon Suit
ARDELYX INC: Strezsak Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ARISE VIRTUAL: Misclassifies Customer Support Agents, Bell Claims

ARKANSAS GENERAL: Little Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice
AUSTIN JACKSON: Seeks to Stay WWH Class Status Proceedings
BANK OF AMERICA: Hicks Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Class Certification Hearing Reset to Oct. 28
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Rice Entered

CAMPBELL SOUP: Cleveland FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
CANADA: Agrees to Spend Almost C$8-Bil. to Settle Lawsuits
CANADIAN HELICOPTERS: Passengers File Class Action Over Negligence
CMRE FINANCIAL: St. George Suit Moved From C.D to S.D. California
COINBASE GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline

COINBASE GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CONCHO RESOURCES: Faces Warwick Suit Over Price Share Drop
CONDUENT INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid to Reopen NJ Securities Suit OK'd
CORMEDIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 20 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Patrick Hits Share Price Drop

CURATION FOODS: Labor Law Firms File Class Action Lawsuit
CVS HEALTH: Piescik Sues Over Hand Sanitizer Product's False Ad
D&D PIZZA INC: Mason Hits Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Min. Wages
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates False Advertising Law, Traer Suit Alleges
DRAFTKINGS INC: Hoorn Sues Over 4.17% Decline of Stock Price

DSW RESTAURANT: Faces Contreras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 24 Deadline
ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Jackin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL: Vidaurre Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
ERIC BRADLEY: Hernandez-Sierra Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot

ERIC BRADLEY: Palmer Bid for Class Status Junked as Moot
FINAL CLEANING: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Sewers' OT Wages
FIRST NATIONS: Settlement Reached Over Clean Drinking Water Suit
FLINT, MI: Discusses Attorneys Fees in Water Crisis Settlement
GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Gann Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Settlement in Loreto Suit Wins Initial Approval
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Enters Class Certification Schedule
GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE: Underpays Childcare Professionals, Kerns Claims
HANWHA TECHWIN: Illinois Court Dismisses Jacobs BIPA Class Suit
HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, AR: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Middleton Suit

ISLAND EXTERIOR: Choukroun Sues Over Design Associates' Unpaid OT
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hellner Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
JUUL LABS: Bayard School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Murrieta District Says

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Glarus School Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Tuslaw Claims
JUUL LABS: East Jackson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Faces Maine School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Yale Suit Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.

JUUL LABS: Fairless School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Jackson School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Elgin School District Says
JUUL LABS: Massillon School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio
JUUL LABS: Minerva School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic

JUUL LABS: Parkview School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wis.
JUUL LABS: Sandy Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
JUUL LABS: Shawnee District Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
LEGACY SUPPLY: Faces Ramos Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
LG BEST: Faces Lopez Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data

LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Legal Services
MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked for Call Center Agents
MERRICK GARLAND: Denial of Murphy Class Status Bid Endorsed
MUFG UNION BANK: Taylor Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violations
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing

NEW SCHOOL: First Amended Amable Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
NORMAN BARWIN: Agrees to $13M Settlement Over Fertility Class Suit
OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Suit Over 7.8% Drop of Share Price
OATLY GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of September 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline

OHIO: Cooper & Damschroder Dismissed From Heyward v. AOCI & ORDC
PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Management of Accounts
PAYROLL MADE: $220K Class Deal in Broughton Suit Has Prelim. Nod
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served

PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 21 Deadline
PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit

REGGIANO CORP: Galvez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Deductions
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Remanded to Spokane Super. Court
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Sought
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of McIntosh Suit
SD AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pelico Suit Says

SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING: Underpays Scaffolders, Fajardo Suit Claims
STABLE ROAD: Hall Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
STABLE ROAD: Klein Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
TARTE COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
TESLA INC: Reportedly Agrees to $1.5M Settlement for Battery Case

TIREHUB LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jones' 1st Amended Complaint Granted
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Supra Repairs
TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lorea Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes

UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Haberlein Suit Over FLSA Violations
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Retirement Plan Members File ERISA Suit
UPS STORE: McLaren Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
US FERTILITY: Leonard Suit Transferred from E.D.N.Y. to Maryland
VERTAFORE INC: Demetros Sues Over Use of Motor Vehicle Records

VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice
WARDROBE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Tatum-Rios Says
WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Elmy Suit
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Whiteley Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement

                            *********

291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLE ROGERS AND
ASHLEY WILBURN, on Behalf of Themselves and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. 12291 CBW, LLC, RCI DINING SERVICES
(BEAUMONT), INC., and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00266-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting class certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in this case.

According to the complaint, witnesses testified that the Class
Members performed the same job duties at Temptations, were required
to pay the same "House Fees" to Defendants, clocked-in using the
same time clock system, earned money primarily from tips from
customers, and were all classified as independent contractors.
There are hundreds of other dancers in the Class and the evidence
establishes that these Class Members are
"similarly situated" in every material respect.

The Defendant RCI Hospitality is a publicly-traded company that
owns and operates a variety of businesses in the adult
entertainment industry, including adult entertainment nightclubs.
RCI operates its adult entertainment nightclubs through several
brands that it claims "target many different demographics of
customers by providing a unique, quality entertainment
environment." Temptations is one such brand. Temptations operates a
Forth Worth location and a Beaumont location

The dancers at Temptations are universally misclassified by
Defendants as independent contractors and not as employees. As a
result of being labeled as independent contractors, the dancers (1)
are not paid wages, (2) are required to pay Defendants' "House
Fees," and (3) are required to give portions of their tips to
employees of Defendants who work in positions that normally do not
receive tips. Defendants' illegal misclassification policy has
existed for years. Despite the law in the Fifth Circuit being
settled for approximately 30 years that dancers are employees,
Defendants have simply refused to comply with the law. This lawsuit
is designed to remedy Defendants' illegal conduct.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 27,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jo8qjw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don J. Foty
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

3M COMPANY: Axe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DANIEL AXE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02185-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Axe case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Braud Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN PAUL BRAUD v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02182-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Braud case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Coomer Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY COOMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02376-RMG
(D.S.C., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN CHESTER ELLIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02183-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Ellis case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Goodwin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE GOODWIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02190-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Goodwin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Hamilton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARION MALACHI HAMILTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02191-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Hamilton case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Iochum Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARL FRANCIS IOCHUM v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02188-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Iochum case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Kenny Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN ROBERT KENNY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02184-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Kenny case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOEY DAVID PALMER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Palmer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Rice Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN RICE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02189-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Rice case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Rogers Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH ROGERS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02180-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Rogers case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Settlement in Suit Over PFOA in Drinking Water 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 settlement in the putative class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, awaits court approval.

In New York, 3M is defending 40 individual cases and one putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York and four additional individual cases filed in
New York state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corp., Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and
Co., Tonaga, Inc. (Taconic) is also a defendant in the state court
actions. Plaintiffs allege that Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
discharged from fabric coating facilities operated by non-3M
entities (that allegedly had used PFOA-containing materials from
3M, among others) contaminated the drinking water in the Village of
Hoosick Falls, the Town of Hoosick and Petersburg, New York.

They assert various tort claims for personal injury and property
damage and in some cases request medical monitoring.

3M has answered the complaints in these individual cases, which are
now proceeding through discovery.

In the federal court individual cases, the parties selected 24
claimants in May 2021 for a pool from which eight plaintiffs will
be chosen for expert discovery and dispositive motions. At the
conclusion of these motions, the court will determine which case(s)
will continue toward trial.

In the putative class action, class certification briefing is
complete, and in July 2021, certain parties, including 3M, reached
an agreement to resolve litigation among the settling parties,
pending approval by the district court.

Under the agreement, 3M, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell will
collectively contribute to a fixed total amount of approximately
$65 million to resolve the plaintiffs' claims and those of the
proposed classes. 3M's contribution is not considered material.

3M is also defending 12 individual cases in New York filed by
Nassau and Suffolk County drinking water providers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege that products manufactured by
3M, DuPont, and additional unnamed defendants contaminated
plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds.
DuPont's motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied
in March 2020. 3M has filed answers in these cases and discovery is
ongoing.

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: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------
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 parties have agreed to continue to
stay the St. John case.

A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M,
BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking
property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or
near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case,
pending ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case
and another case.

Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by
certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking
relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case,
respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the St. John case.

The Company is in active discussions for negotiated resolutions
with multiple parties regarding filed claims and pre-litigation
disputes related to historical Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) manufacturing operations in Alabama.

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: Teller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TUTTLE TELLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02187-RMG (D.S.C., July 19,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

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

The Teller case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02375-RMG
(D.S.C., July 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                - and –

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

ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER: Toney Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE TONEY v. ADVANTAGE
CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP, INC. and STRATICS NETWORKS, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-00182-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Embry J. Kidd
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Judge Kidd said, "Advantage argues that the Court should not
certify the class or the subclasses because Plaintiff fails to
satisfy all of the Rule 23 requirements and standing. The Plaintiff
has not provided the undersigned with any evidence that he received
"more than one unwanted telemarketing call" or binding authority
that receipt of a single phone call with a voice message
constitutes an injury in fact for Article III standing purposes.
Advantage also argues that the Court should not certify the class
or the subclasses because Plaintiff fails to satisfy all of the
Rule 23 requirements and standing. Thus, I conclude that Plaintiff
does not have standing even under his alternative rendition of
events. I respectfully recommend that the Motion be denied."

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendants
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act (TCPA).
The Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2019, he started
receiving "ringless voicemails." The Plaintiff alleges that these
voice messages were unsolicited and caused him actual harm --
"wast[ing] twenty-seven seconds reviewing Defendants' unwanted
message." As a result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff brought
this lawsuit, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:

   "All persons within the United States who during the four
   years prior to filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a
   prerecorded message (2) using software provided by
   Stratics, and (3) where the prerecorded message directed the
   individual to contact Defendant [Advantage]."

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following
subclasses:

   Service Subclass:

   "All persons within the United States who during the four
   years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a
   prerecored message (2) using the software provided by
   Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the
   individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where
   Defendant [Advantage] exclusively obtained the individual's
   contact information as a result of the individual servicing
   their vehicle at Defendant [Advantage's] dealership and not
   from [Advantage's] website or as a result of the individual
   purchasing a vehicle from [Advantage].

   Purchase Subclass:

   "All persons within the United States who during the four
   years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a
   prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by
   Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the
   individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where
   Defendant [Advantage] obtained the individual's contact
   information because of the individual purchasing a vehicle
   from [Advantage] and not from [Advantage's] website.

   Website Subclass:

   "All persons within the United States who during the four
   years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a
   prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by
   Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the
   individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4)
   [Advantage] obtained the individual's contact information
   because of the individual imputing their information on
   [Advantage's] website.

   No Evidence Subclass:


   "All persons within the United States who during the four
   years prior to the filing of this lawsuit (1) were sent a
   prerecorded message (2) using the software provided by
   Stratics, (3) where the prerecorded message directed the
   individual to contact Defendant [Advantage], and (4) where
   Defendant [Advantage] did not obtain the individual's contact
   information as result of any of the following: (a) the
   individual purchasing a vehicle from [Advantage], (b) the
   individual imputing their information on [Advantage's]
   website, or (c) the individual servicing their vehicle at
   Defendant [Advantage's] dealership.

A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 27, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TWGeeX at no
extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Flores Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUCIA FLORES, DONNA RUCKER, JASON STEBBINS, SANDY
WHITE, JULIE BLOOM STEBBINS, CHERI ANNE CLARKE, and BECKY WHITE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00873, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on August 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04064 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting or storing
the biometric identifiers of the buyers of Amazon's Alexa devices
without obtaining prior written consent.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence, with its headquarters located at 410
Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington.

Amazon.com Services, Inc. is a provider of e-commerce services,
with its headquarters located at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         David B. Richardson, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S.
         2135 112th Ave., N.E., Suite 200
         Bellevue, WA 98004
         Telephone: (425) 646-9801
         Facsimile: (425) 451-2661
         E-mail: david@dbrlaw.com

                 - and –

         Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
         PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
         818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
         St. Louis, MO 63104
         Telephone: (314) 833-4825
         E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com

                 - and –

         Aaron Siri, Esq.
         Mason Barney, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com
                 mbarney@sirillp.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Seeks Pay for Mandatory Security Screenings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Hetrick at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that
Pennsylvania employers must pay workers for time spent going
through mandatory security screenings, the state Supreme Court has
ruled, a decision that threatens to force Amazon.com to compensate
hundreds of workers for thousands of previously unpaid hours.

The 5-2 decision last week stems from a proposed class action
lawsuit against Amazon, claiming the firm failed to pay warehouse
workers in Breinigsville, Pa., near Allentown in Lehigh County, for
security checks. The state Supreme Court did not decide the final
outcome of the Amazon case but ruled on the specific question of
whether screenings count as "hours worked" under Pennsylvania law.

The ruling could have implications across Pennsylvania beyond the
Breinigsville warehouse. Amazon now faces a similar suit in
Philadelphia seeking unpaid wages for all of the company's current
and former workers at Pennsylvania fulfillment centers. And the
decision could open the door for claims against other companies.
For example, the time spent logging into software at call centers
or donning a gown at meat processing plants could be affected by
the ruling, legal experts said.

"In the era of COVID, one could imagine that it might also include
things like temperature checks and rapid tests," said Sophia Lee, a
law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Amazon now encircles the Philadelphia region with over 50
warehouses

After clocking out for the day, Amazon workers in Breinigsville had
to undergo security screenings to make sure they hadn't stolen
goods. The checks included metal detectors and bag inspections.
Sometimes, employees got stuck in line.

The average employee incurred about 21 minutes of unpaid time a
week, plaintiffs claimed, though Amazon disputes how long the
security checks took. Workers at the warehouse racked up a total of
205,725 hours of unpaid time between 2010 and 2015, according to
court records. Plaintiffs' lawyers did not attach a dollar figure
to the total but suggested workers would be owed millions in back
wages. One staffer's unpaid time totaled 67.75 hours over four
years.

In 2013, employees Neil Heimbach and Karen Salasky sued in
Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, and the suit was consolidated with
similar claims in other states. A federal judge in Kentucky tossed
out those claims after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a separate case,
ruled that security screenings were not compensable under federal
law.

The Breinigsville workers still sought back pay under Pennsylvania
law. They appealed their case to the federal appeals court for
Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee, which asked the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court for guidance on the state's wage law. The state court
ruled July 21 that mandatory security screenings do count as hours
worked in Pennsylvania. It said that state wage law doesn't view
short time periods -- known as "de minimis" time -- as too trivial
for compensation.

Pennsylvania's minimum wage law "plainly and unambiguously requires
payment for 'all hours worked,' signifying the legislature's intent
that any portion of the hours worked by an employee does not
constitute a mere trifle," Justice Debra Todd, a Democrat, wrote
for the majority.

Amazon spokesperson Barbara Agrait declined comment, citing active
litigation. In court papers, Amazon contends that its security
screenings were not mandatory because workers had the option of
using so-called express lanes if they left bags or other items
before they entered the facility.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas Saylor, a Republican, said
the ruling could expose employers to lawsuits for failing to pay
overtime for all sorts of activities, such as swiping security
cards at turnstiles, opening doors, pushing elevator buttons, and
traveling hallways.

"Both since it is impractical to attempt to record time for all
such collateral undertakings -- and because such undertakings do
not in my judgment comprise what I believe the legislature would
reasonably have conceived as work -- I respectfully dissent," he
wrote.

The eight-year-old case will now resume in federal court, said
Peter Winebrake, the lawyer for the Breinigsville workers. He said
the Pennsylvania ruling is part of a trend throughout the country
of courts expanding rights under state wage laws beyond what's
provided under federal law.

"Ten years ago, there was just this presumption [among employers]
that 'as long as we're complying with the federal law, we're going
to be good,'" said Winebrake, of the Dresher-based law firm
Winebrake & Santillo. "Now businesses really have to, in addition
to asking whether they're complying with the federal law, they have
to start looking at the state laws."

In Nevada, Amazon and a staffing agency, Integrity Staffing
Solutions, agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle a similar security
check case involving 42,000 warehouse workers. A federal judge
approved the settlement last week.

The unpaid security screenings were among the issues driving an
organizing effort at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama, where workers
rejected unionization by a wide margin. Citing the Pennsylvania
ruling, Winebrake filed the new suit against Amazon last week,
seeking unpaid wages for its workers across the state.

The ruling in Pennsylvania could pave the way for lawsuits against
other companies that impose requirements on their workers before
and after shifts. One activity that's been a source of similar
claims is putting on and removing uniforms and safety equipment,
said Lee, the Penn Law professor. Companies such as Apple and FedEx
have been sued over unpaid security screenings, too, she added.
[GN]

AMAZON.COM: Kryzhanovskiy Slams Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Leilani Kryzhanovskiy, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a proxy for the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Amazon.com Services, LLC, and Does
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01292 (E.D. Cal., July
22, 2021), seeks general, compensatory, punitive, and statutory
damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, statutory
penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as the imposition of
civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Wage Commission Order.

Kryzhanovskiy was hired by Amazon in January 2020 to work as an
Onsite Medical Representative primarily assigned to its Stockton,
California warehouse locations. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired,
a male with comparable qualifications and experiences was hired for
the same position and was inexplicably offered substantially more
in wages.

Kryzhanovskiy was offered at the time of her hire, shift
differentials as well as other remuneration such as "Guarantee Pay"
and "additional pay" that was required to be included in her
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime and
double-time earnings. However, Amazon did not include these other
items of remuneration when calculating her regular rate of pay. She
also claims that she was denied overtime pay and such hours did not
reflect on her wage statements.

Once her supervisors became aware of her complaints regarding
violations of the Labor Code and gender discrimination, they began
retaliating against her. She claims to be passed on for a promotion
because of her actions, the complaint relates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY, P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209)473-4818
      Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
             jbaysinger@mayallaw.com


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Galeas Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CESY GALEAS, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04218 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief and
declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief as a
result of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
machine operator from in or about December 2011 to in or about May
31, 2021, claims that the Defendant failed to timely pay him and
other similarly situated manual workers "on a weekly basis and not
later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which
the wages are earned. Instead, the Defendant paid them on a
bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis, thereby violated New York Labor
Law Section 191, the Plaintiff added.

Amneal Phrmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

APACHE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into APA
Corporation (NasdaqGS: APA) formerly Apache Corporation.

On March 12, 2020, the Company disclosed it was slashing its
quarterly dividend per share "from $0.25 to $0.025" and that,
"[o]ver the coming weeks, the company will reduce its Permian rig
count to zero, limiting exposure to short-cycle oil projects."
Then, on March 16, 2020, pre-market, Seeking Alpha issued a report
noting that the Company was carrying "the highest debt-to-equity
ratio among large-cap independent [exploration and production
companies]," that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance
sheet" and its "financial health isn't great," among other things.

The Company and certain of its executives have been sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws, which is ongoing.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether APA's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to APA's shareholders or
otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of APA shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-apa/ to learn more.

                        About KSF

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]

ARCH INSURANCE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Gordon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GORDON, ET AL. v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-01911-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All factual discovery shall be completed by February 28,
      2022.

   2. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses they intend
      to designate on issues related to class certification,
      including expert reports, by November 22, 2021.

   3. Defendant shall disclose any expert witnesses it intends
      to designate on issues related to class certification,
      including expert reports, by January 13, 2022.

   4. Plaintiffs shall disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses on
      issues related to class certification, including rebuttal
      expert reports, by January 28, 2022.

   5. Plaintiffs shall move for class certification by February
      18, 2022.

   6. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification by March 28, 2022.

   7. Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification is due
      by April 29, 2022.

   8. Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert witnesses they intend
      to designate on merits issues, including expert reports,
      by May 13, 2022.

   9. Defendant shall disclose any expert witnesses it intends
      to designate on merits issues, including expert reports,
      by June 10, 2022.

  10. Plaintiffs shall disclose any rebuttal expert witnesses on
      merits issues, including rebuttal expert reports, by July
      8, 2022.

  11. All discovery requests and depositions directed to expert
      witnesses designated on merits issues shall be completed
      by August 8, 2022.

Arch Insurance is a commercial property casualty insurer. The
company provides specialty products through an exclusive
distribution network.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VnKfKa at no extra charge.[CC]

ARDELYX INC: Strezsak Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN STREZSAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ARDELYX INC., MIKE RAAB, and JUSTIN RENZ, Case No.
4:21-cv-05868-HSG (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2021) is a federal
securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other
than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Ardelyx
securities between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the
Class Period), and who were damaged thereby.

In June 2020, Defendants submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA")
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Ardelyx's lead
product candidate, tenapanor, supposedly first-in-class medicine
for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on
dialysis. According to Ardelyx, tenapanor has "a unique mechanism
of action and acts locally in the gut to inhibit the sodium
hydrogen exchanger 3, or NHE3," resulting in the "tightening of the
epithelial cell junctions, thereby significantly reducing
paracellular uptake of phosphate, the primary pathway of phosphate
absorption." If approved, tenapanor "would be the first therapy for
phosphate management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the
primary pathway of uptake[,]" and "could greatly improve patient
adherence and compliance with one single pill dosed twice daily in
contrast to current therapies where typically multiple pills are
taken before every meal." Thus, tenapanor (and its promise) was
widely touted by Defendants and, accordingly, extremely important
to the valuation (and future success) of Ardelyx securities.

The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") date of April 29, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Company repeatedly lauded this
development, highlighting the FDA's acceptance and review of the
NDA, supported by so-called "successful" Phase 3 studies, in each
subsequently filed quarterly report and in the Company's 2020
Annual Report (defined below). Even when the FDA requested that the
Company provide additional information related to Ardelyx's
clinical data, which caused the PDUFA date to slip by three months,
the Defendants continued to hype Ardelyx's "positive" clinical
trial results, which, according to them, showed "improvements" over
current treatments, supported tenapanor's "clinical safety and
efficacy," and reinforced its "potential" as a "transformative"
treatment. At no point did Defendants state (much less suggest)
that there may be fatal issues with the drug, its clinical trial
data, or both. Rather, Defendants simply claimed that the FDA's
request was merely because they needed help to "better understand
the clinical data in light of tenapanor's novel mechanism of action
as compared to approved therapies."

The Defendants' rosy narrative, however, came to a screeching halt
after the market closed on July 19, 2021. At that time, Ardelyx
announced that it had received a letter from the FDA, dated July
13, 2021, that said the administration had found deficiencies that
precluded discussion around the would-be labeling and
post-marketing requirements for tenapanor. Critically, the FDA said
it detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance of the
drug's treatment effect.

Immediately, analysts cut their price targets and downgraded the
Company's rating. Piper Sandler, for example, rated Ardelyx neutral
(down from a buy-equivalent rating) and wrote, "we struggle to see
a path forward for Tenapanor." Raymond James, another analyst,
reset the Company's price target to $4 from $14 per share.

The Company's share price likewise plunged, falling $9.71 per
share, or nearly 74%, in a single day, to close at $2.01 per share
on July 20, 2021, before falling another 4.2% by market close on
July 21, 2021.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading 9 statements regarding tenapanor
and the likelihood that it would be approved by the FDA. The
Defendants possessed, were in control over, and, as a result, knew
(or had reason to know) that the data submitted to support the NDA
was insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance of
the drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if not
certain) that the FDA would not 13 the drug.

This lawsuit seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' wrongdoing.

Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum
phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart
failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
                  tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com

ARISE VIRTUAL: Misclassifies Customer Support Agents, Bell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DONNA BELL, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00538-WBG (W.D. Mo., July 27, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional and willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Customer Support
Professional (CSP) from approximately October 2019 through December
2019 and September 2020 to March 2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
asserting claims that the Defendant misclassified her and other
similarly situated CSPs as "Independent Business Owners" or agents
of "Independent Business Owners." This is allegedly the Defendant
way of avoiding to compensate them at least minimum wage for all
the time spent performing duties for the Defendant. Specifically,
the Defendant did not compensate them for the training time, and
has required them to pay for the training, equipment, and other
expenses that were needed to perform their work. As a result of the
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSPs
received an hourly rate that is less than the federal minimum wage
rate.

Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc. operates as a call center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Tel: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com
                  mcassorla@llrlaw.com

                - and –

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          Ben Ashworth, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 W 75th St. #220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Tel: (913) 220-2488
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
                  ben@mcinnes-law.com

ARKANSAS GENERAL: Little Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD LITTLE v. ARKANSAS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00501-LPR (E.D. Ark.),
the Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice.

Plaintiff Edward Little is in custody at the Varner Unit of the
Arkansas Division of Correction. He filed this action pro se. Mr.
Little did not pay the $402 filing and administrative fee or file
an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit
(IFP Application).

On June 17, 2021, the Court instructed Mr. Little that to proceed
with this action, he must either pay the filing fee or file a
complete IFP Application within 30 days. 2 Mr. Little was warned
that his failure to comply with the June 17, 2021 Order would
result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice.

Mr. Little has not complied with or otherwise responded to the June
17, 2021 Order, and the time for doing so has passed. All pending
motions are denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fBqyp2 at no extra charge.[CC]

AUSTIN JACKSON: Seeks to Stay WWH Class Status Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, et
al., v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00616-RP
(W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying
all further briefing and proceedings related to Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment and motion for class certification until after
the Defendants' forthcoming jurisdictional challenges have been
resolved.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2021. The various
State Defendants and Defendant Penny Clarkston received service on
either July 14 or July 15, 2021. The Defendant Mark Lee Dickson was
served on July 16, 2021. Pursuant to the applicable rules, State
Defendants intend to file their responsive pleadings by August 4,
2021, and Mr. Dickson intends to file his responsive pleading by
August 6, 2021. Defendants are also aware that Plaintiffs have
filed a lengthy motion for summary judgment and a separate motion
for class certification.

The Defendants intend to raise various jurisdictional arguments in
their initial responsive pleadings, explaining why this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and why many or all of
the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37jBhzM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorney for all Plaintiffs are:

          Christen Mason Hebert, Esq.
          JOHNS & HEBERT PLLC
          2028 East Ben White Blvd., Suite 240-1000
          Austin, TX 78741
          Telephone: (512) 399-3150
          E-mail: chebert@johnshebert.com

The Attorneys for The Ajiya Center, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas
Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity,
North Texas Equal Access Fund, are:

          Stephanie Toti, Esq.
          LAWYERING PROJECT
          41 Schermerhorn Street #1056
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (646) 490-1083
          E-mail: stoti@lawyeringproject.org

The Attorneys for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical
Health Services, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center,
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, and Dr. Bhavik Kumar, are:

          Julie Murray, Esq.
          Richard Muniz, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
          AMERICAN
          1110 Vermont Ave., NW Ste 300
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 973-4997
          E-mail: Julie.marray@ppfa.org
                  Richard.muiniz@ppfa.org

The Attorneys for The Ajiya Center, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas
Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity,
North Texas Equal Access Fund, are:

          Rupali Sharma, Esq.
          LAWYERING PROJECT
          197 Pine Street, Apt. 23
          Portland, ME 04102
          Telephone: (908) 930-6445
          E-mail: rsharma@lawyeringproject.org

The Attorneys for Whole Woman's Health, Whole Woman's Health
Alliance, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center,
Allison Gilbert, MD., Brookside Women's Medical Center PA d/b/a
Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center,
Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo Women's Reproductive
Services, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Reverend Daniel
Kanter, and Reverend Erika Forbes, are:

          Molly Duane, Esq.
          Kirby Tyrrell, Esq.
          Melanie Fontes, Esq.
          CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
          199 Water Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 637-3631
          E-mail: mduane@reprorights.org
                  ktyrrell@reprorights.org
                  mfontes@reprorights.org

               - and -

          Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
          J. Alexander Lawrence
          Morrison & Foerster LLP 250
          W. 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com
                  alawrence@mofo.com

The Attorneys for Houston Women's Clinic, are:

          Julia Kaye, Esq.
          Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
          Chelsea Tejada, Esq.
          Lorie Chaiten, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18 th Floor
          New York, NY I 0004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2633
          E-mail: jkaye@aclu.org
                  bamiri@aclu.org
                  ctejada@aclu.org
                  rfp_lc@aclu.org

               - and -

          Adriana Pinon, Esq.
          David Donatti, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.
          5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
          E-mail: apinon @aclutx.org
                  ddonatti@aclutx.org
                  asegura@aclutx.org

The Counsel for State Defendants are:

          Ken Paxton, Esq.
          Brent Webster, Esq.
          Grant Dorfman, Esq.
          Shawn E. Cowles, Esq.
          Thomas A. Albright, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Walton, Esq.
          Christopher D. Hilton, Esq.
          Halie Daniels, Esq.
          Beth Klusmann, Esq.
          Natalie Thompson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 463-2120
          Facsimile: (512) 320-0667
          E-mail: Benjamin.Walton@oag.texas.gov
                  Christopher.Hilton@oag.texas.gov
                  Halie.Daniels@oag.texas.gov
                  Beth.Klusmann@oag.texas.gov
                  Natalie.Thompson@oag.texas.gov

The Attorneys for the Defendant Penny Clarkston are:

          Andrew B. Stephens, Esq.
          Heather Gebelin Hacker, Esq.
          HACKER STEPHENS LLP
          108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 399-3022
          E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com
                  heather@hackerstephens.com

The Counsel for the Defendant Mark Lee Dickson are:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          Mitchell Law PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

BANK OF AMERICA: Hicks Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE HICKS, KUANG TING CHONG, and STEPHANIE MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-05544,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on August 2, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01384-LAB-MSB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied duty of competence, and violations of
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the California Consumer Privacy
Act, and the Unfair Competition Law by failing to implement
appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the
Employment Development Department (EDD) debit cards of California
residents.

Bank of America, N.A. is a financial institution with its principal
place of business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
         GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C.
         10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12
         Phoenix, AZ 85037
         Telephone: (734) 678-5169
         E-mail: ben@gubernicklaw.com

                 - and –

         David N. Lake, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
         A Professional Corporation
         16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (818) 788-5100
         Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
         E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Class Certification Hearing Reset to Oct. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA
N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D. Cal.),  the Hon. Judge
Beth Labson Freeman entered an order approving stipulation to
continue briefing deadlines on motion for class certification; and
resetting hearing date from October 21, 2021 at 9:00 am to October
28, 2021 at 9:00 am.

The parties have agreed to continue the due date for Bosch Solar's
opposition briefing, and Plaintiffs' reply briefing, by two weeks.
Bosch Solar's opposition briefing will be due no later than August
20, 2021, and Plaintiffs' reply briefing will be due no later than
October 5, 2021.

Bosch Solar manufactures silicon-based photovoltaic products and
solar cells. The Company distributes crystalline silicon solar
modules and ingots.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VC59oj at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          John W. Rotunno, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249 1014
          Facsimile: (415) 882 8220
          E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com
                  john.rotunno@klgates.com
                  joseph.wylie@klgates.com

BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Class Cert. Scheduling Order in Rice Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALLY E. RICE, as trustee
for the Winston Lawrence Rice Trust, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS
COMPANY LP, Case No. 4:20-cv-00431-GKF-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered a second amended class
certification scheduling order as follows:

   1. Documents previously produced       December 10, 2021
      by Parties shall be deemed
      authenticated

   2. Class Certification Motion and      December 10, 2021
      Plaintiff's expert disclosures

   3. Response to Class Certification     February 9, 2022
      Motion and Defendant's expert
      disclosures

   4. Reply to Class Certification        March 11, 2022
      Motion

   5. Class Certification Discovery       March 11, 2022
      cutoff

   6. Parties agree to participate        March 25, 2022
      in private mediation by

   7. Hearing on Class Certification      April 8, 2022
      Motion at 9:30 a.m.

Burlington Resources owns and operates oil and gas wells.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUyZfp at no extra charge.[CC]


CAMPBELL SOUP: Cleveland FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Denise Cleveland, Lanna Rainwater, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Campbell Soup
Company, Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Case No. RG21101115 was removed
from the Alameda Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on August 3, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-06002 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Campbell Soup Company, doing business as Campbell's --
https://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/ -- is an American processed
food and snack company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: (213) 229-9509
          Fax: (213) 625-0248
          Email: dgiali@mayerbrown.com


CANADA: Agrees to Spend Almost C$8-Bil. to Settle Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Mackrael at marketwatch.com reports that the Canadian
government said Friday it would spend close to 8 billion Canadian
dollars, or the equivalent of $6.43 billion, to resolve class
action lawsuits over unsafe drinking water in indigenous
communities.

If the agreement receives court approval, it would include C$1.5
billion in compensation for people who were unable to access clean
drinking water and a pledge to spend at least C$6 billion to
support reliable access to safe drinking water for indigenous
communities, the government said. The agreement would also include
C$400 million for an economic and cultural restoration fund for
indigenous communities.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged when his Liberal
government was elected in 2015 to eliminate all drinking water
advisories in indigenous communities, but has so far fallen short
of that goal. As of June, 51 long-term water advisories remained,
covering 32 communities.

The settlement agreement comes as Canada faces a reckoning over its
past and current treatment of indigenous communities, following the
discoveries of hundreds of unmarked graves near former boarding
schools for indigenous children. The country's Truth and
Reconciliation Commission found that abuse was common at the
schools, which were meant to assimilate indigenous children into
European-Canadian culture.

"For hundreds of years now, Canada has enjoyed vast wealth while
indigenous people lack access to even the basic necessities of life
like drinkable water," said Emily Whetung, chief of the Curve Lake
First Nation in the Canadian province of Ontario. "Today, we have
come one step closer to reconciling this long history."[GN]


CANADIAN HELICOPTERS: Passengers File Class Action Over Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Willick at CBC News reports that a New Glasgow, N.S., law
firm has launched a class-action lawsuit after a helicopter went
into freefall -- twice -- and came so close to crashing that a
rotor blade struck the ocean when attempting to transport workers
to an oil rig near Sable Island two years ago.

The class action, filed by MacGillivray Law, alleges Canadian
Helicopters Limited, the company operating the Sikorsky S-92A, was
negligent.

The suit claims damages for the suffering of the 11 passengers and
their psychological injuries, including PTSD, as well as damages
for loss of earning capacity and medical care and legal costs.

The early part of the flight that departed Halifax Stanfield
International Airport just before noon on July 24, 2019, was
uneventful, even though visibility was poor that day due to fog.

The helicopter made two attempts to land at the helideck on the
offshore rig, but both were aborted because the captain and first
officer couldn't see the deck, rig or horizon.

It was on the third landing attempt, after the crew spotted the
helideck -- but still could not see the horizon or the water --
that things went awry.

As the helicopter approached the landing platform, the nose of the
aircraft was too high, the helicopter was banking to the right, was
approaching at a slower speed than standard and was in an
increasingly rapid descent. But the crew didn't notice these
hazards because one of them had disengaged the autopilot features
that would have alerted them.

Vortex ring state
Although one of the crew eventually checked the dashboard and saw
that the nose was too high, they still didn't notice the rapid
descent or the slow speed of travel -- conditions that are perfect
for a helicopter entering what's called a vortex ring state. That
is when the air patterns around a helicopter change and the rotor
can't keep the aircraft aloft and it begins to drop
uncontrollably.

That's what happened.

"The helicopter was in an out-of-control tailspin dropping toward
the ocean surface," the court document says. "This was all readily
apparent to the class members, who were terrified and bracing
themselves for a crash into the ocean surface."

At one point, the helicopter, which was by then dropping at a rate
of nine metres per second, came very close to crashing into the
offshore rig.

Now 30 metres above the water, the monitoring pilot put his hands
and feet on the controls to brace himself and try to help the
flying pilot level the aircraft before the expected impact with the
ocean.

Now 20 metres above the water, the passengers "felt the helicopter
shake and yaw severely to the right," and "the screens and systems
all went blank and alarms engaged."

"At the point of near impact, the engines were throttled beyond
limit, extremely loud, torqued at well over capacity," the
statement of claim reads. "The class members could hear the engines
screaming as ocean water sprayed all over the windows. . . . . The
class members thought the helicopter was crashing into the ocean
surface at high speed and that they were going to die."

Robert Kenney, the representative plaintiff in the legal action,
said: "If you can imagine your life passing before your eyes,
everything was going crazy. Everybody on the chopper, there was a
lot of screaming and hollering."

Another passenger, Donald Shupe, said the drop to the water felt
like it happened in seconds.

"We went sideways and I smashed my head on the window and next
thing you know I was looking at water," he said. "I looked at
everybody else and I said, 'This must be our day.' . . . . I was
vibrating inside because I didn't think we were actually going to
pull out of this. I honestly thought this was it."

Last-second reprieve
All of a sudden, according to the statement of claim, "in the last
small fraction of a second," because of the extremely high torque
and the aircraft being banked so far to the right, the helicopter
came out of the vortex ring state.

"The helicopter stopped its drop at most just a couple of feet
above the ocean surface as the landing gear and bottom made actual
contact," the court document says. "The class members observed the
end of the main propeller blade strike the ocean surface."

The pilot then flew the helicopter, which was still in a tailspin,
straight up to an altitude of about 411 metres as the crew
continued to try to stabilize it.

Then, the aircraft began falling again, out of control, and flew
over Sable Island in this way until the pilot was able to regain
control.

Passengers traumatized
The return trip to Halifax was "rough and noisy," says the
statement of claim.

"The class members were already in a state of extreme mental and
physiological stress. The class members remained in a heightened
state of arousal the entire flight back given the manner in which
the helicopter was flying, noisily and jarringly, at a low
altitude, with systems down and on autopilot."

Kenney said he's been diagnosed with PTSD because of the incident,
and he's not able to concentrate as well as he could in the past.

"Seems like I'm always lost in space," said Kenney, who lives in
Sheet Harbour, N.S. "I used to always be like a trivia champion . .
. . and now as soon as somebody asks me a question, point blank, my
mind is gone."

Although Kenney did go offshore on two occasions since then, he
recently turned down a job offer in the industry because he is too
anxious about flying. He said he now has to work many more hours at
his job on land to make up for the wages he's lost, which has
affected his lifestyle and family.

Shupe, of Triton, N.L., said he went back to work about a year
after the incident, but was then laid off.

He also said he lives with the memories of that day, and has
nightmares about helicopter crashes.

"I am not the same person today as I was two years ago. And I know
if I don't have professional help, God forbid I don't know what's
going to happen."

Transportation Safety Board report
The lawsuit alleges the company allowed recordings of conversations
between the two pilots to be destroyed before they could be heard
by investigators.

An investigation by the Transport Safety Board of Canada found that
the helicopter, which was removed from service after the incident,
stopped just four metres above the water.

The report also found that the company's operating procedures did
not give flight crew enough guidance to ensure that their landing
approaches were within industry-recommended standards, and did not
warn of the hazards of overriding autopilot in poor visibility.[GN]

CMRE FINANCIAL: St. George Suit Moved From C.D to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DINA ST. GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 8:21-cv-00748, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on July 30, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01374-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by using prerecorded message calls to collect debts,
even after having been informed by recipients of those calls that
it has reached the wrong person and telephone number.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a medical debt servicing and
collections company, with its headquarters located at 3075 East
Imperial Highway, Ste. 200, Brea, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         William Litvak, Esq.
         DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
         11500 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 550
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 477-5575
         E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com

                 - and –

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

COINBASE GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:COIN)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus for the resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its
Class A common stock, whereby Coinbase began trading as a public
company on or around April 14, 2021.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021

Throughout the class period, Coinbase Global, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company required a sizeable cash injection;
(2) the Company'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 of
the foregoing Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in COIN:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/coinbase-global-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:
COIN) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's April 2021 initial
public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the important
September 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Coinbase securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's IPO 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 Coinbase class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2127.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 20,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, 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, the registration
statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company's IPO were
false and misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the
IPO: (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 of the
foregoing, the positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Coinbase class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2127.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. [GN]

CONCHO RESOURCES: Faces Warwick Suit Over Price Share Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF WARWICK RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. CONCHO RESOURCES INC.,
CONOCOPHILLIPS (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CONCHO RESOURCES INC.),
TIMOTHY A. LEACH, JACK F. HARPER, C. WILLIAM GIRAUD, BRENDA R.
SCHROER, and E. JOSEPH WRIGHT, Case No. 4:21-cv-02473 (S.D. Tex,.
July 30, 2021) is a securities class action brought on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concho
common stock from February 21, 2018 through July 31, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action is brought against Concho, ConocoPhillips as the
Company's successor-in-interest having acquired Concho January
2021, and certain of Concho's officers and/or directors during the
Class Period for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Concho was engaged in the acquisition, development, exploration,
and production of oil and natural gas properties, primarily in the
Permian Basin. In 2018, Concho planned and constructed the
Dominator Project ("Dominator") in the Delaware Basin, part of the
larger Permian Basin. Dominator, consisting of 23 wells, was
incredibly large in scope.

During the Class Period, Concho repeatedly touted to investors that
the Company's transition to large-scale development projects,
including Dominator, generated cost savings, optimized resource
recovery, and was designed to mitigate well-spacing risks. As an
extension of this "evolution" to large-scale development, the
Defendants told investors that at Dominator in particular, the
Company was engaging in "spacing tests" and "seeing the results
[they] expect[ed]."

However, despite Defendants' efforts to portray Dominator as a
density test, the well spacing at Dominator was a highly reckless
gamble of exorbitant cost premised on no reasonable basis to
believe it would work as intended. Moreover, Defendants' portrayal
of Dominator as an outlier compared to other projects in terms of
spacing density was false and misleading. Indeed, unbeknownst to
investors, current and upcoming 2018-2019 projects were also using
aggressively dense well spacing, and therefore subject to the same
risks, says the suit.

Importantly, aggressively tight well spacing can create underground
interference between the wells and permanently decrease production
rates. Therefore, well spacing is material to investors.

After the close of trading on July 31, 2019 and during the
following trading day on August 1, 2019, the Defendants shocked the
market by revealing the wells at Dominator were spaced "too tight."
As a result, the Company disclosed that it had drastically reduced
its total active rig count to avoid overshooting budgets and would
be forced to scale down production targets for the rest of the
year. Defendants also disclosed that moving forward, Concho would
begin spacing all of its wells farther apart -- revealing at the
same time that certain current and upcoming projects were
"moderately more dense" in terms of spacing, the suit added.

In response to the disclosure, an analyst at Jeffries in a report
dated August 5, 2019, expressed frustration that while the Company
had previously stated Dominator "was not representative of the
company's development plans it turns out operations were not
consistent with that message."

Put simply, Concho's wager on Dominator and density testing in
general was such an unmitigated failure that it would impact the
entirety of the Company's 2019 operations and beyond. On this news,
Concho shares declined approximately 22 percent in a single day on
August 1, 2019, as the artificial inflation was removed from
Company stock.

As would be revealed following the end of the Class Period, it
would take until 2020 to fully unwind the impacts of these "tests"
at Dominator and elsewhere. As a result of the foregoing, during
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects.

Allegedly, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that the well spacing at Dominator was
aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to
believe it would work as intended.

The Plaintiff purchased Concho common stock during the Class Period
and was damaged as the result of Defendants' wrongdoing as alleged
in this complaint.

Concho Resources Inc. was a company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration, incorporated & organized in Delaware and headquartered
in Midland, Texas, with operations exclusively in the Permian
Basin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
                  afatale@labaton.com

CONDUENT INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid to Reopen NJ Securities Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE CONDUENT INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:19-cv-08237-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Andre M.
Espinosa entered an order:

   1. granting the Lead Plaintiff's request to reopen this
      action;

   2. directing the Clerk of Court to mark this case open and
      restore it to the active docket of the Court; and

   3. directing the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification be marked on the docket as a pending motion.

On April 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order administratively
terminating this action pending the outcome of mediation. The April
29, 2021 Order provided that this action may be reopened upon
letter request by any party. on July 16, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed
a letter requesting that the matter be reopened and restored the
Court's active docket.

Conduent is an American business process services company
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. It was formed in 2017 as
a divestiture from Xerox.

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


CORMEDIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CRMD) securities between July 8, 2020 and May
13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CorMedix investors have
until September 20, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

In July 2020, CorMedix filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for DefenCath, an
antibacterial and antifungal solution, as a catheter lock solution
with an initial indication for use of preventing certain
catheter-related bloodstream infections.

On March 1, 2021, CorMedix announced the NDA would not be approved
"in its present form" due to "concerns at the third-party
manufacturing facility." Moreover, the 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, CorMedix announced it 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.

Then, 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." Among other things, the Company
was required "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."

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 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
the following: (1) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had downplayed the true
scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased CorMedix securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 20, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased CorMedix securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.[GN]


CORMEDIX INC: Patrick Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cormedix Inc., Khoso Baluch, Matthew David
and Phoebe Mounts, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-14020 (D. N.J., July
22, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws.

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 U.S. and
internationally. Khoso Baluch, Matthew David and Phoebe Mounts are
members of its Board of Directors. CorMedix's lead product
candidate, DefenCath is an antibacterial and antifungal solution
designed to prevent costly and dangerous catheter-related
bloodstream infections. In July 2020, CorMedix completed submission
of a New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
for DefenCath as a catheter lock solution with an initial
indication for patients with end-stage renal disease who are
receiving hemodialysis via a central venous catheter.

Patrick alleges that CorMedix failed to disclose deficiencies in
DefenCath's manufacturing process and that the FDA was unlikely to
approve the DefenCath's New Drug Application in its present form.
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.

Patrick claims to have acquired Cormedix common stock at
artificially inflated prices and lost when its share price went
down. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165-0006
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


CURATION FOODS: Labor Law Firms File Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Curation
Foods, Inc. ("Curation Foods") and Landec Corporation for allegedly
failing to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest
periods. The Curation Foods and Landec Corporation class action
lawsuit, Case No. 21CV02834, is currently pending in the Santa
Barbara County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of
the Complaint can be read here.

According to the lawsuit, Curation Foods and Landec Corporation
allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202,
203, 204, 206.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and
1198 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages;
(3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and (5) provide wages when due.

Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on
the established payday for the period involved, not less than the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period,
whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or
otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as
"the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Curation
Foods and Landec Corporation allegedly required its employees to
perform work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as
during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Curation
Foods and Landec Corporation failed to compensate its employees for
any of the time spent under the employer's control while working
off-the-clock. As such, Curation Foods and Landec Corporation
allegedly failed to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage
for all hours worked in a payroll period.

If you would like to know more about the Curation Foods and Landec
Corporation lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by
calling (619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys if you need help with workplace
issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation,
discrimination, and harassment. [GN]

CVS HEALTH: Piescik Sues Over Hand Sanitizer Product's False Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Piescik, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. CVS HEALTH, a Rhode Island corporation, Case
9:21-cv-81298-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's false advertising, unfair and deceptive marketing
practices, and materially misleading claims employed and
disseminated in connection with the sale of its hand sanitizer (the
"Product").

The complaint alleges that on the front of each Product, Defendant
represents that the Product would kill virtually all germs. The CVS
Original Scent Moisturizing Hand Sanitizer and related CVS brands
advertise on their bottles, "Kills 99.99% of Germs." However, the
Defendant's germ-fighting representation is false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public. CVS' marketing strategy
has been successful, and the hand sanitizer is a popular product.
But that success is built around messaging that is materially
misleading and deceptive to consumers, lacks a factual basis, and
recklessly omits material information, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff purchased the hand sanitizer Product from a local West
Palm Beach CVS store in March of 2020.

Defendant CVS Health is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

                    - and -

          Daniel Faherty, Esq.
          TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL
          815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201
          Titusville, FL 32780
          Telephone: (321) 269-6833
          Facsimile: (321) 383-9970
          E-mail: CGuntner@ctrfa.com


D&D PIZZA INC: Mason Hits Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Min. Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY MASON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. D&D PIZZA, INC., and DAVID M. BUMPAS, Case No.
4:21-cv-00920  (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2021) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's Pizza stores.

The complaint alleges that Defendants employ delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provide such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

Individual Defendant Bumpas is the owner and officer of Defendant
D&D Pizza, Inc., an entity operating numerous Domino's Pizza
franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone
          Fax: (214) 346-5909 fax
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Violates False Advertising Law, Traer Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD D. TRAER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., FERNANDO
TAPIA DBA DOMINO'S PIZZA, SALMEX PIZZA INC., SALMAR PIZZA INC, JP
PIZZA, INC and GAFE PIZZA INC. and DOES 1 throuh 25 inclusive, Case
No. (July 30, 2021) alleges that the Defendants' representations,
warranties, and statements that the Products are $5.99 per product
when Domino’s charges more is unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent
conduct, is likely to deceive members of the public, and continues
to this day, in violation of the California’s Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the
California’s False Advertising Law.

The Defendant DOMINO'S owns "corporate" Domino's Pizza Stores and
also has franchisees ("Franchises") who sell pizzas and other
authorized products through delivery and carry-out services under
the trade name Domino's Pizza. DOMINO'S offers franchises in the
form of Traditional and Non-Traditional Domino's Pizza Stores and
related concepts under the agreement entitled FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE
DOCUMENT, which is overseen by DOMINO'S Pizza Franchising LLC
located at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105,
DOMINO'S Franchising LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant
21 DOMINO'S.

The Defendant DOMINO'S operates the corporately owned Domino's
Pizza Stores. Defendant TAPIA and other Franchisees purchase and
operate Domino's Pizza Store franchises from DOMINO's and its
related entities pursuant to the terms of DOMINO'S "Franchise
Agreement" (FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT).

DOMINO'S is responsible for developing, establishing, promoting and
carrying out DOMINO'S National Advertising for all Domino's Pizza
Stores (corporate, Traditional Franchises, and Non-Traditional
Franchises).

The "Franchise Agreement" requires that Franchisees must contribute
to the National Advertising Fund for the cost and expense of
national advertising for the benefit of both Domino's Pizza Stores
(corporate and franchised) and the Defendants through television
ads, national campaigns, public announcement, newspapers and other
means of advertising to the general public. DOMINO'S runs its
national advertising through Domino's National Advertising Fund,
Inc., says the suit.

DOMINO'S PIZZA INC. is the parent company, directly or indirectly
of all Domino's Pizza related entities including DOMINO'S PIZZA
LLC, DOMINO'S Pizza Franchising, LLC and also DOMINO'S National
Advertising Fund, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation which
administers the collection and expenditures of the Advertising Fund
from Franchisees like Defendant TAPIA for the purpose of National
advertising for the Franchisees.

DOMINO'S requires that Franchisees contribute no less than 2% of
the weekly Royalty Sales to the cooperative. DOMINO'S can require a
maximum combined contribution to the national advertising fund and
local and regional advertising of 9% of the weekly Royalty Sales of
the Store. DOMINO's Advertising Fund places advertising in any
media. The coverage is typically national in nature. The
Advertising is developed by DOMINO'S and its related entities
in-house marketing department and national advertising agencies and
other advertising partners. DOMINO'S also requires Franchisees to
participate in local and regional advertising cooperatives for
advertising and promotional programs administered by DOMINO'S and
its related entities and/or other franchisees.

Through its advertising, DOMINO'S AND TAPIA touts that it is an
innovator and pioneer of "delivery ideas that make it easier and
more convenient for our consumers.

Domino's consumers are well aware that Domino's offers a variety of
ways for its consumers to save money on Domino's pizzas and related
products, because Domino's touts that it saves its consumers money
by offering a variety of discounts through the use of its coupons
by way of national marketing campaign that runs on a national,
regional, and local level through the National Advertising Fund.

Essentially, consumers of Domino's have become accustom to
receiving discounts on Domino's products whether directly from the
original price because of DOMINO's national marketing campaigns
financed from the National Advertising Fund and run by DOMINO'S and
its related entities.

Among its many discounted programs is DOMINO'S and TAPIA'S Domino's
"Mix & Match" ("Mix & Match Deal") 1 financed from the National
Advertising Fund and run by DOMINO'S and its related entities.,
which has been in existence since (at least) 2009. Dominos has used
a similar advertisement for its "Mix Defendants' representations,
warranties, and statements that the Products are $5.99 per product
when Domino's charges more is unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent
conduct, is likely to deceive members of the public, and continues
to this day, added the suit.

Plaintiff Traer seeks to represent a class defined as: "All persons
in the United States who purchased the Products through Defendants'
"Mix and Match" deal and are not subject to an arbitration
agreement, at any time during the class period" (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates,
employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that
purchased the Products for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to
this case.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          220 Halleck, Suite 220
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com

               - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

DRAFTKINGS INC: Hoorn Sues Over 4.17% Decline of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIEL TEN HOORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND EAGLE
ACQUISITION CORP., JASON D. ROBINS, JASON K. PARK, JEFF SAGANSKY,
and ELI BAKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06497 (S.D.N.Y., July
30, 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 DraftKings' business,
operations, and compliance policies with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in order to trade DraftKings securities at
artificially inflated prices between December 23, 2019 and June 15,
2021. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SBTech (Global)
Limited had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly,
DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the company to dealings in
black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increased the company's
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions;
(iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the company's revenues were,
in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v)
accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination Agreement
were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, says the suit.

When the truth emerged, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per
share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021,
damaging investors.

DraftKings Inc., formerly known as Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp.,
is a digital sports entertainment and gaming company, with
principal executive offices located at 222 Berkeley Street, 5th
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Melissa Muller, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Fl.
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                 mmuller@zlk.com

DSW RESTAURANT: Faces Contreras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZAIRA CONTRERAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DSW RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED D/B/A DOUBLE
SHOE MEN'S CLUB; 3625 HIGHWAY 146, INCORPORATED; and ALLEN WHEAT,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00199 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks,
and forced tipping & subsidization of ownership.

The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at the Defendants'
principal place of business located at 3625 Highway 146, Bacliff,
Texas from approximately 2013 through November 2019.

DSW Restaurant, Incorporated, doing business as Double Shoe Men's
Club, is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented entertainment
facility, with its principal place of business at P.O. Box 241,
Kemah, Texas.

3625 Highway 146, Incorporated is an owner and operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility, with its principal place of
business at P.O. Box 241, Kemah, Texas. [BN]

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

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of April 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent" or the "Company") (NYSE:
EBS) against certain of its officers and directors.

Recently a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against
the Company on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Emergent
from April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021 (the "Class Period").

According to the filed complaint: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant
had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for
massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks
and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string
of FDA citations; (iii) the Company previously had to discard the
equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers
at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple
COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were
materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

Then on, July 30, 2021, Emergent said it has received inquiries and
subpoenas from many U.S. authorities related to its abilities to
manufacture COVID-19 bulk drug substance.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Emergent, holding
shares before April 24, 2020, you may have standing to hold
Emergent harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and
directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you are a current, long-term shareholder of
Emergent, holding shares before April 24, 2020; you can [Click here
to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.

                       About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]


ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Jackin Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC. The case is styled as Jill Jackin, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company
LLC doing business as: Enhanced Resource Centers doing business as:
ERC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00234-SMJ (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2021).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://ercbpo.com/ -- provides
debt collection and asset recovery and reporting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Jimenez Cunanan, Esq.
          DC LAW GROUP
          12055 15th Ave NE
          98125
          Seattle, WA 98125
          Phone: (206) 494-0400
          Fax: (855) 494-0400
          Email: matthew@dclawyers.com


EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL: Vidaurre Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Paola Negron Vidaurre, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUANIMITY BEHAVIORAL SERVICES
CO., a Florida Profit Corporation, and KELLY NEGRON, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-61522(S.D. Fla., July 25, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt employee from approximately August 2020 to May 12,
2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
asserting claims that the Defendant did not compensate her and
other similarly situated employees for the time they spent
performing off the clock work for the Defendants. The Plaintiff
also asserts that the Defendants willfully engaged in practices
that denied them the applicable minimum wage and overtime wage at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages and liquidated damages,
compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation,
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Equanimity Behavioral Services Co. operates a facility that
provides care for the sick, the aged, or mentally or physically
handicapped or gifted children, a preschool, elementary or
secondary school, or an institution of higher education. Kelly
Negron is an owner, manager and employer of EBS. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. BROCK II
          10074 E. Bay Harbor Dr., Ste., 74D
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Tel: (305) 781-5030
          E-mail: BrockLegalTeam@gmail.com

ERIC BRADLEY: Hernandez-Sierra Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN HERNANDEZ-SIERRA v.
WARDEN ERIC BRADLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00057-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an order that:

   1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed
      without prejudice.

  2. Petitioner's motion to amend is granted and the amended
      document is accepted as filed.

   3. The motion to appoint class counsel and for class
      certification is dismissed as moot.

   4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VwNrm7 at no extra charge.[CC]

ERIC BRADLEY: Palmer Bid for Class Status Junked as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELDON PALMER v. WARDEN
ERIC BRADLEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00061-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Robert D. Mariani entered an order that:

   1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed
      without prejudice.

   2. Petitioner's motion to amend is granted and the amended
      document is accepted as filed.

   3. The motion to appoint class counsel and for class
      certification is dismissed as moot.

   4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

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

FINAL CLEANING: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Sewers' OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINAL CLEANING SEWER & DRAIN SERVICES, INC.
and PATRICK ENGLISH, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04209 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around June
2019 until in or around November 2020 as a sewer cleaner and to
perform other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked
approximately 66 or more hours per week and approximately 10 or
more hours per week during his employment with the Defendants, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, as well as "spread of
hours" pay at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day
worked over 10 hours. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to
keep accurate payroll records and to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL,
says the suit.

Final Cleaning Sewer & Drain Services, Inc. provides sewer cleaning
services. Patrick English owns and operates the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIRST NATIONS: Settlement Reached Over Clean Drinking Water Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
discoverestevan.com reports that a nearly $8 billion settlement
between the federal government and First Nations who launched a
class-action lawsuit over clean drinking water has been reached.
The announcement of the agreement in principle was made.  

The agreement in principle, which still needs to be approved by the
courts, was announced by the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake
First Nation and Neskantaga First Nation, along with Minister of
Indigenous Services Marc Miller. The agreement addresses concerns
identified by the First Nations in terms of clean drinking water.
It includes $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals, the
creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural
Restoration Fund, the commitment of at least $6 billion to support
reliable access to safe drinking water and planned modernization of
Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation.  

There are currently three long-term drinking water advisories
affecting First Nations in Saskatchewan and 27 short-term drinking
water advisories. The short-term advisories include 26 boil water
advisories, as well as a do not consume advisory for Zagime
Anishinabek First Nation. Across the country, there are 51
long-term drinking water advisories affecting 32 First Nations.
[GN]

FLINT, MI: Discusses Attorneys Fees in Water Crisis Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
toledoblade.com reports that how much money should the attorneys
get that negotiated a settlement from the state in the Flint water
crisis?

We don't know, and may not know for weeks. But we know how much
they want: $202 million. And that figure has prompted uproar and
outrage and divided legal circles.

"Pigs. These attorneys are greedy pigs," said one federal judge,
who was unwilling to be quoted by name but who has presided over
many multimillion-dollar settlements.

But Powell Miller, a leading Michigan trial lawyer who has
successfully argued many class action cases, disagrees. "Class
action lawyers are easy targets, easy to attack. But what people
don't realize is that they risk a lot. They spend thousands of
hours and rack up enormous expenses, sometimes for years, before
ever getting paid.

"They sometimes have to borrow huge sums, and if they lose, if the
case doesn't get certified as a class action, they don't get
anything."

You want lawyers who sue on behalf of their clients to have every
incentive to fight as hard for them as they can, he said, adding
that "defense lawyers, on the other hand, usually get a monthly
paycheck, and usually get a higher hourly rate." Mr. Miller has had
no involvement with the Flint cases.

Virtually no one doubts that the Michigan state government
seriously wronged the residents of Flint in 2014, when it forced
them to switch to using toxic water from the Flint River.

That water had many problems, the worst of which was that it
corroded the pipes and caused many residents, including thousands
of highly vulnerable children, to suffer lead poisoning.

An army of lawyers sued on behalf of thousands of victims, and many
of these cases were bundled into a class action suit. Last year,
after prolonged battles, the state legislature agreed, almost
unanimously, to settle the cases for $600 million in state money,
plus an additional $41 million from other parties who were sued.

That was the largest such award in state history and may sound like
a lot of money, but there are so many victims that monetary awards
for those who suffered most are likely to be small. But they may be
even smaller if the attorneys who negotiated the settlement get as
much as they are asking for.

The settlement calls for two-thirds of the money to go to the most
vulnerable victims — those children under the age of 6 who may
have had their bodies and minds affected by the lead poisoning.

But an analysis by Alexander Collingsworth in the Georgetown
Environmental Law Review concluded if the money is evenly divided,
"each person who was six or younger when they were exposed will
receive just $36,281.25 for their . . . . permanent injury."

That calculation apparently did not take legal fees into account.
The burden on deciding what an appropriate amount of money for the
lawyers should be, and how the money will be shared, is up to U.S.
District Judge Judith Levy. She held hearings earlier this month in
which both the attorneys and Flint residents were allowed to argue
about what the proposed settlement should be.

It wasn't even immediately clear how many lawyers are involved in
the settlement, though a request for reimbursement of $7 million in
expenses mentioned 41 attorneys from 24 law firms.

There was little or no opposition to reimbursing the lawyers for
these expenses. But there were vast differences as to how much
their compensation should be for representing their clients.

One Flint legislator, state Rep. John Cherry, said the fees were
way out of line and told a reporter the lawyers should get more
like 10 percent of the total, not the 30 percent they requested.

However, a lawyer for the Center for Class Action Fairness in
Washington argued that in settlements of this magnitude, attorneys
have gotten an average of about 17 percent.

But Corey Stern, a New York attorney involved in the case, argued
vigorously in favor of lawyers getting the full $202 million.

He said that many of the plaintiffs signed contracts pledging to
give their lawyers 33 percent if they won, which is a standard
contingency fee in such cases.

Others, however, noted that there is such a thing as economies of
scale, and in settlements of this magnitude, an award that large
may seem obscene, especially when children who clearly have
suffered irreversible brain damage seem unlikely to get enough
money to address what may be a lifetime of incapacitating
problems.

Judge Levy did not say whether she would accept the fee proposal,
or reduce it. Nor did she say how long it would take her to decide.
She did say "I personally have a very hard decision to make."

What we also don't know is whether she will, as is customary,
appoint someone to oversee and decide on how the money will be
shared out, either for the victims or the affected residents.

What we do know is that the Flint water crisis of 2014-2016 is
anything but over, when it comes to dealing with the fallout from
an event that destroyed political careers and poisoned a city.

Former Gov. Rick Snyder is only one of many former officials facing
criminal indictment, and Flint, a city that has been in decline
since the 1960s, is still suffering the aftereffects, with no end
in sight. [GN]


GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Gann Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASON GANN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDA CL NORTHWEST d/b/a GARDAWORLD,
Case No. 2021CV32019, was removed from the District Court in Denver
County, Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on July 30, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-02069 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers and the Colorado Overtime and
Minimum Pay Standards Order by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Garda CL Northwest Inc., doing business as GardaWorld, is a
security and risk company, with a principal place of business in
Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Leah E. Capritta, Esq.
         HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
         1801 California Street, Suite 5000
         Denver, CO 80202
         Telephone: (303) 974-6656
         Facsimile: (303) 974-6659
         E-mail: leah.capritta@hklaw.com

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Settlement in Loreto Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LORETO, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01366-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo
P. Curiel entered an order granting renewed motion for preliminary
approval of proposed class action settlement:

On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Loreto filed a putative class action
and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action complaint
against the Defendant General Dynamics. On September 5, 2019, the
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint in this case. In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges causes of
action for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA, (2)
failure to pay overtime wages under California Labor Code; (3)
failure to timely pay wages at separation under California Labor
Code; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
under California Labor Code; and (5) failure to provide all premium
wages under California Labor Code.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary Maximum
Settlement Amount of $900,000, from which the following deductions
would be made:

   (a) attorneys' fees up to $300,000 to compensate class
       counsel;

   (b) actual costs of $12,940;

   (c) service payment to Plaintiff up to $10,000;

   (d) settlement administration expenses up to $13,200;

   (e) PAGA payment to the Labor Workforce and Development
       Agency (LWDA) of $33,750 (75% of the $45,000 PAGA
       penalty); and

   (f) PAGA payment of $11,250 to PAGA members (June 26, 2018
       through preliminary approval) (25% of the $45,000 PAGA
       penalty).

General Dynamics provides information technology services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37irFFr at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Enters Class Certification Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN and THE
CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY and JEFFREY S. BORNSTEIN, Case No. 1:17-cv-08457-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order:

   1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendants' loss
      causation expert is extended to August 9, 2021;

   2. The Defendants shall file any pre-motion letter requesting
      leave to file an early summary judgment motion on loss
      causation by or on August 9, 2021;

   3. The Plaintiffs shall file any response to Defendants' pre-
      motion letter by or on August 16, 2021; and

   4. The Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification by or on August 30, 2021;

   5. All other deadlines set forth in the Order shall remain in
      effect.

   6. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants waive their rights to
      seek for each other or the Court additional adjournments
      or extensions of the above deadlines, and the entry into
      this Stipulation shall not waive, and the parties
      expressly preserve, all rights, claims, and defenses,
      other than the defense as to sufficiency of service.

On February 26, 2021, the Court entered a Civil Case Management
Plan and Scheduling Order setting forth deadlines related to (i)
loss causation expert discovery and Defendants’ anticipated
pre-motion letter requesting leave to file an early summary
judgment motion on loss causation; (ii) class certification; and
(iii) the pretrial conference.

The parties have agreed to request that the deadline for Defendants
to file any opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification be extended by 10 days, to August 30, 2021; a
pretrial conference is scheduled for August 12, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.

General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate
incorporated in New York State and headquartered in Boston.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yiKGn7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden are:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com

The Counsel for Additional Plaintiff The Cleveland Bakers and
Teamsters Pension Fund, are:

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 722-8501
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 993-9767
          E-mail: sean.berkowitz@lw.com

GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE: Underpays Childcare Professionals, Kerns Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
AISLYN KERNS, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANDMAMA'S HOUSE OF PRESCHOOL AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT, INC. and JEFFREY BAILEY STANFILL, individually,
and BRIDGETTE STANFILL, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00569 (M.D. Tenn., July 27, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt childcare professional. The Plaintiff claims that she
and other similarly situated childcare professionals worked in
excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants because they were
regularly required to stay past the end of their scheduled shifts
and work hours. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all time they worked in excess of 40 per week.
Allegedly, the Defendant would edit the time keeping records down
to reflect 40 hours or less worked by the Plaintiff and other
childcare professionals. Additionally, there were instances that
their paychecks for a pay period were reduced to below federal
minimum wage due to deductions taken out by the Defendants, the
Plaintiff says.

Grandmama's House of Preschool and Child Development, Inc. provides
childcare and day care services. Jeffrey Bailey Stanfill and
Bridgette Stanfill own and operate the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorellu@jsyc.com

                 - and –

          Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Tel: (615) 851-1776
          Fax: (615) 859-7033
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

HANWHA TECHWIN: Illinois Court Dismisses Jacobs BIPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, LEROY JACOBS, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HANWHA TECHWIN AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 C 866 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiff Jacobs brings a three-count putative class action
complaint against the Defendant, alleging violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS Sections 14/1, et seq.,
("BIPA").  Count I alleges a violation of Section 15(a), Count II
alleges a violation of Section 15(b), and Count III alleges a
violation of Section 15(d).

The Defendant markets and sells video technology products,
including security cameras manufactured by its parent company,
Hanwha Techwin.  The Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2020, he
saw several of the Defendant's security cameras installed at the
entrance of a T.J. Maxx store in downtown Chicago.  He claims that
he learned about the cameras' "ability to perform facial
recognition" during that shopping trip.  According to him, the
Defendant collected his biometric data though facial recognition
technology in the security cameras "to track, identify, and
prosecute shoplifters."  The Plaintiff faults the Defendant for
failing to inform its "visitors" that it is collecting and storing
biometric data, and alleges "upon information and belief" that
defendant discloses such data, all in violation of BIPA.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "All
individuals in the State of Illinois who had their facial geometry
scans, biometric identifiers, and/or biometric information
collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained, maintained,
stored, disclosed, or disseminated by Defendant during the
applicable statutory period."

Enacted in 2008, BIPA protects Illinois residents' privacy interest
in their biometric information.  BIPA "imposes numerous
restrictions on how private entities collect, retain, disclose and
destroy biometric identifiers," such as fingerprints, retina scans,
and face scans.  Under the Act, any person 'aggrieved' by a
violation of its provisions 'shall have a right of action against
an offending party' and 'may recover for each violation.'

The Plaintiff asserts claims against defendant under Sections
15(a), 15(b), and 15(d) of BIPA.  Section 15(a) requires entities
"in possession of" biometric data to develop a publicly available
retention schedule and destruction deadline for the data.  Section
15(b) requires entities that collect biometric data first to inform
the subject in writing that they are doing so; state the "specific
purpose and length of time for which" the data "is being collected,
stored, and used;" and receive an executed written release
authorizing them to collect the data.  Finally, Section 15(d)
prohibits entities "in possession of" biometric data from
disclosing it, except in certain circumstances.

The Defendant's response notes several crucial facts that the
Plaintiff does not allege.  For example, he does not allege that it
installed the cameras, operated the cameras, or in any way accesses
or controls T.J. Maxx's security system.  Indeed, it notes that it
has no interest in "prosecuting shoplifters" at T.J. Maxx.  The
Plaintiff also does not allege that defendant operates any systems
or servers to store any information captured by the cameras.  A
full reading of the Plaintiff's complaint suggests that the
Defendant's only alleged connection to those cameras was its role
as the manufacturer and distributor.

Discussion

The Defendant has moved to dismiss all three counts under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  To survive such a motion, a complaint must
contain "enough factual matter (taken as true)" to suggest that a
plaintiff is entitled to relief.  The complaint must include
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."  "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."

I. Section 15(b) of BIPA

Unlike Sections 15(a), (c), (d), and (e) of BIPA -- all of which
apply to entities "in possession of" biometric data -- Section
15(b) applies to entities that "collect, capture, purchase, receive
through trade, or otherwise obtain" biometric data.  The parties
appear to agree that mere possession of biometric data is
insufficient to trigger Section 15(b)'s requirements.  They
dispute, however, whether Section 15(b) applies only to entities
that "actively" collect biometric data.  The Defendant argues that
it does, and that the Plaintiff's allegations do not sufficiently
plead that defendant itself actively collected his biometric data,
or that of the putative class members.  The Plaintiff responds that
the Defendant is reading a nonexistent and more stringent
requirement into the statute.

Ultimately, Judge Gettleman holds that the Plaintiff has not
plausibly alleged that defendant collected, captured, purchased,
received through trade, or otherwise obtained biometric data from
plaintiff or the putative class members.  In fact, a complete
reading of the complaint makes clear that the Defendant is merely a
third-party technology provider (that is, merely provided the
cameras), and that the active collector and processor of the data
is T.J. Maxx.  This holding comports with other courts that have
addressed Section 15(b) claims levied against third-party
technology providers.  For these reasons, Count II is dismissed.

II. Sections 15(a) and 15(d)

Sections 15(a) and 15(d) of BIPA apply to entities "in possession
of" biometric data. 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (d).  BIPA does not define
"possession," see 740 ILCS 14/40, and courts have routinely used
the ordinary definition of the word.  In this context, possession
occurs when someone "exercises any form of control over the data or
held the data at his disposal."

Judge Gettleman holds that like the plaintiff in Heard v. Becton,
Dickinson & Co., 440 F.Supp.3d 960, 963 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citing
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197, 1199 (2019)),
the Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations that
plausibly establish that the Defendant exercised control over his
data or otherwise held his data at its disposal.  And like the
allegations concerning collection of data, most of the Plaintiff's
allegations concerning possession merely parrot the statutory
language.  The complaint does not say whether the Defendant could
freely access the data, or even how the Defendant allegedly
received it.  The Plaintiff's complaint fails to plead factual
matter that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
defendant was "in possession" of his biometric data, or that of
putative class members.

Judge Gettleman concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint contains
no allegations of fact which, if true, suggest there is any basis
to even suspect that the Defendant disseminated the biometric data
at issue.  The Court is not required to credit rank speculation.
Consequently, the Judge grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Count I and Count III.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/65c8t4dn from
Leagle.com.


HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, AR: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Middleton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY MIDDLETON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-4112, (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O.
Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff Middleton alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") by failing to pay overtime
to a group of individuals who were similarly situated.  Middleton
brings the FLSA claims individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated.

The Court has certified a collective action that includes all
non-patrol detention officers/jailers employed by the Defendant
since Aug. 1, 2015.  Two individuals, Alvin Mills and Charles
Maxwell, have filed consents to join the collective action.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay them proper
overtime compensation.

Pursuant to the FLSA, the Defendant elected to utilize the 171 hour
per 28-day pay period overtime threshold for all employees of the
Sheriff's Office.  Sheriff's Office employees do not receive
payment for overtime until they have exceeded 171 hours of time
actually worked in a prescribed 28-day period.  Prior to January
2018, the Defendant compensated its employees for overtime hours
worked with a grant of compensatory time off at the rate of 1.5
hours for every hour of overtime worked.  In January 2018, the
Defendant changed its overtime compensation policy and began paying
cash compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5
times the effective hourly rate of pay.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant did not fully compensate
them for compensatory time off they had earned but not used prior
to Jan. 1, 2018, when it switched to a cash compensation policy for
overtime hours.  The Defendant has submitted evidence that it
issued a check to each Plaintiff on June 13, 2018, to compensate
him for the compensatory time off earned prior to Jan. 1, 2018.
The evidence shows that Middleton, Mills, and Maxwell endorsed and
negotiated their checks.  However, when asked about these checks in
their depositions, Mills and Maxwell testified that they did not
recall receiving a check for their compensatory time off.
Middleton testified that he received the check but believes that
the Defendant incorrectly withheld money from this check.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were paid for every hour reported
on their timesheets.  However, they claim that their timesheets do
not accurately reflect the hours they worked and that they worked
overtime hours for which they were not paid.

The Defendant has submitted over 400 pages of timesheets and
payroll data for the Plaintiffs showing that they were paid for all
hours submitted on their timesheets.  It argues that it is entitled
to summary judgment because the Plaintiffs cannot offer proof of
damages.  The Plaintiffs argue summary judgment should be denied
because factual disputes exist as to whether their timesheets were
inaccurate and whether they were fully compensated for their
compensatory time off accrued prior to January 2018.

Discussion

The Defendant is subject to FLSA provisions for public agencies
engaged in law enforcement activities, which require it to pay
overtime at a rate of one and one-half regular pay to non-exempt
employees engaged in law enforcement for all hours worked in excess
of 171 hours in a twenty-eight-day work period.  The Plaintiffs
claim that they were not paid for overtime hours worked that were
not included on their timesheets.  They also claim that they were
not compensated for the compensatory time off earned but not used
prior to 2018.  "An employee who sues for unpaid overtime has the
burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not
properly compensated."

A. Accrued Compensatory Time Off

The Defendant contends that on June 13, 2018, it fully paid the
Plaintiffs for all compensatory time off accrued and not used prior
to Jan. 1, 2018.  It has submitted images of cleared checks that
were remitted to and negotiated/cashed by Gary Middleton, Charles
Maxwell, and Alvis Mills as payment of their accrued compensatory
time.  The checks were endorsed by the Plaintiffs.  The Defendant
has also submitted the withholding breakdowns of these checks.  

Judge Hickey finds that both Mills and Maxwell testified that they
did not recall receiving the checks, while Middleton claims he did
not receive the full amount that was owed.  However, the
Plaintiffs' testimony is vague, and the Plaintiffs offer no
specific facts in support of their general assertions that the
Defendant did not fully pay them for the earned compensatory time
off. On the other hand, the Judge finds that the Defendant has
submitted proof that the Plaintiffs were paid by check in June
2018.  Thus, no reasonable juror could believe that the Defendants
were not paid for their compensatory time off.  Accordingly, the
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs'
claims regarding payment for accrued compensatory time off.

B. Overtime Hours

The Plaintiffs claim that they were not adequately compensated for
the overtime hours they worked.  The Defendant argues that it is
entitled to summary judgment on this issue because the Plaintiffs
have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to show the amount and
extent of their work in excess of 171 hours in a 28-day work
period.

Judge Hickey agrees.  She finds that the Plaintiffs have submitted
contradictory testimony and bare assertions regarding their
overtime hours.  They use vague terms, such as "sometimes" and "a
lot of times," to describe the amount of overtime hours worked but
not compensated for.  When asked by his attorney to estimate the
number of hours worked in a two-week time period, Mills testified
that he worked an average of 180-185, which the Court assumes was a
misunderstanding of the question.  Maxwell estimated that in a
two-week period he worked on average three to four overtime hours
for which he was not compensated.  Middleton recalled two instances
in which he worked 75 overtime hours in a 28-day period but stated
that he was paid for some of the overtime hours worked.  He
provided no other details regarding these instances.  The
Plaintiffs provided these estimates without a meaningful
explanation of how they arrived at these estimates.

The Plaintiffs claim that the timesheets do not accurately reflect
the number of hours they actually worked.  However, at various
times, the Judge finds the Plaintiffs testified that the timesheets
were in fact accurate.  There is no evidence as to specific weeks
that Plaintiffs worked overtime for which they were not
compensated, and the Plaintiffs do not have notes or other
documents regarding their hours that they could compare to the
business records kept by Defendant regarding their hours.

Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, the Judge says, the evidence is conclusory,
inconsistent, not supported by specific facts, and insufficient to
allow a jury to determine the amount and extent of alleged overtime
work or to award damages.  The Plaintiffs have failed to provide
any evidence of actual damages.  Accordingly, the Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding
unpaid overtime hours.

Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Hickey granted the Motion for
Summary Judgment.  She dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
FLSA claims.  Plaintiff Middleton's AMWA claims are dismissed with
prejudice.  Judgment will be entered separately.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sjx4m5jd from Leagle.com.


ISLAND EXTERIOR: Choukroun Sues Over Design Associates' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC CHOUKROUN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISLAND EXTERIOR FABRICATORS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04280 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Massachusetts General Law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated design associates overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to furnish accurate
wage statements.

Mr. Choukroun worked for the Defendant as a design associate from
November 12, 2018 through March 12, 2020 at the Defendant's office
located in Boston, Massachusetts, and then from March 13, 2020
through July 1, 2021 at the Defendant's office located in New York,
New York.

Island Exterior Fabricators LLC is a company that provides façade
design and installation services, with its principal place of
business located at 1101 Scott Avenue, Calverton, New York. [BN]

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Baker Sues Over Adulterated Sunscreen Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, ANNETTE NOKES, ROBERT BOTTERILL, SOPHIA PORTER, ANNA
SWARTZ, MIKE XAVIER, BRIAN SLAFTER, HEIDI HUMPHREYS, FRANK ORTEGA,
and MICHAEL TAILLARD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-14421-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J., July 30, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, 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 Neutrogena and Aveeno 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, the suit says.

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 –

         Mark S. Reich, Esq.
         Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hellner Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as WAYNE HELLNER, an Individual
and Personal Representative of Decedent NOGA HELLNER; BRYAN COHEN,
an Individual, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV18661 (Filed May 15, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on July 19, 2021.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-05827-SB-JDE to the proceeding.

This state court action is a civil action alleging negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, strict liability --
design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, breach of
warranty, fraud -- intentional misrepresentation, fraud --
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, loss of consortium,
wrongful death, and survival action.

The Plaintiffs seek past and future general damages; past and
future economic and special damages; loss of earnings and impaired
earning capacity; medical expenses, past and future; punitive or
exemplary damages; loss of consortium damages; funeral expenses;
attorney's fees; costs of the suit incurred; pre-judgment interest
as provided by law; and any other relief the Court deems necessary,
just and proper.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer
packaged goods.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael F. Healy, Esq.
          Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com
                  eweissenberger@shb.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Zellers, Esq.
          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Telephone: (213) 430.3400
          Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
          E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com
                  amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com

JUUL LABS: Bayard School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
BAYARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05964 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Bayard Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 726 4th Avenue in Bayard, Nebraska.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Murrieta District Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05940 (N.D. Cal., August 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Murrieta Valley Unified School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 41870 McAlby Court in
Murrieta, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, New Glarus School Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW GLARUS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05963 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

New Glarus School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1701 2nd Street in New Glarus, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Tuslaw Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TUSLAW LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05943 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Tuslaw Local School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1835 Manchester Avenue Northwest in Massillon,
Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: East Jackson Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
EAST JACKSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05944 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

East Jackson Community School District is a unified school district
with its offices located on North Sutton Road in Jackson,
Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Maine School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT 11, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05960 (N.D. Cal., August 2,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Maine School Administrative District 11 is a unified school
district with its offices located at 150 Highland Avenue in
Gardiner, Maine.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Yale Suit Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
YALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05961 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Yale Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 198 School Drive in Yale, Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Fairless School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAIRLESS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05947 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Fairless Local School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 11885 Navarre Road Southwest in Navarre,
Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Jackson School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05954-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Jackson Local School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 7602 Fulton Drive in Massillon, Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Elgin School District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELGIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05958 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Elgin Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 501 K Street in Elgin, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Massillon School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MASSILLON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05948-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Massillon City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 930 17th Street Northeast in Massillon,
Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Minerva School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
MINERVA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05952 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Minerva Local School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 406 East Street in Minerva, Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Parkview School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PARKVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05962 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Parkview School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 106 West Church Street in Orfordville,
Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Sandy Valley Sues Over High E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05941 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Sandy Valley Local School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 5362 State Route 183 Northeast in
Magnolia, Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Shawnee District Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05957 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Shawnee Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 326 North Union Avenue in Shawnee, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

LEGACY SUPPLY: Faces Ramos Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC, Case No. (ILL.
Cir., Dupage Cty., July 19, 2021) is a class action complaint
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against
the Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois.
While doing so, Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois. The Plaintiff
contends that he was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a
timeclock that operated, at least in part, by scanning
Plaintiff’s hand. As an employee, he was required to scan at
least one hand, multiple times, so Defendant could create, collect,
capture, construct, store, use, and/or obtain a biometric template
for the Plaintiff.

Allegedly, the Defendant used Plaintiff's biometrics as an
identification and authentication method to track his time,
potentially with the help of a third-party vendor. The Defendant
subsequently stored Plaintiff's biometric data in its database(s).

According to the complaint, while most establishments and employers
use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), Defendant, upon information and belief,
mandated and required that employees have hand(s) scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards
--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised --
biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each employee.

This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious
and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric
database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in
the recent Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Marriott data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other
improper or unlawful use of this highly personal and private
information, added the suit.

Legacy Supply Chain Services provides logistics services. [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

LG BEST: Faces Lopez Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. LG BEST BUY CARPET, INC., Case No. (Ill. Cir., Dupage
Cty., July 19, 2021) is a class action suit seeking statutory
damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and class members are
subject to the unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of
the Defendant Best Buy. As past and present employees of the
Defendant, Plaintiff and class members were required to provide it
with their personalized biometric indicators and the biometric
information derived therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically,
Defendant collects and stores its employees fingerprints and
requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning
their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine.

Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, Defendant
allegedly uses this data to compare the future scans of their
employees' fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock
device scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee
punching in to work is who they claim to be. The collection of the
punch-clock fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees'
presence.

The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their
fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the
fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information.

As part of this process, the Defendant recorded and stored certain
employees' fingerprint biometrics using fingerprint-scanning
computer technology. As part of this process, the Defendant
associated employees' biometric data with their personal
identifying information, such as name and address, added the suit.

The Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff's or class members' written
consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store Plaintiff's and
class members' biometric data. The Defendant did not also obtain
Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to capture and store
Plaintiff's and class members' biometric data, alleges the suit.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com

LIFESTYLE LEGAL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Legal Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
news24.com reports that in 2019, City Press received numerous
complaints from readers about the behaviour of Lifestyle Legal,
which was deducting money from their bank accounts for "legal
services". If payments were not made, Lifestyle Legal would
threaten legal action and blacklisting. City Press raised these
complaints with the National Credit Regulator, the National
Consumer Commission and the Payments Association of SA.

Lifestyle Legal was the business behind 19 "loan finder" websites,
which offered a service to source a loan for consumers. Consumers
had to pay a monthly fee for services that, depending on the
website, cost between R88 and R199 a month. Loans were not
provided, but consumers found themselves on the hook for the
monthly services.

Consumers who are able to reverse these debits begin to receive a
barrage of threats and harassment from the relevant company.
Court application

If they tried to cancel, they were told they had agreed to a
contract; and if they reversed the debit order, they were harassed
and threatened with blacklisting.

Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly. However, the
Stellenbosch University (SU) Law Clinic has successfully brought a
class action application against Lifestyle Legal on behalf of
thousands of defrauded consumers.

The SU Law Clinic filed the certification application with the Cape
Town High Court on September 13 2019, and the ruling by that court
was made.

In its application, the clinic stated that it "had been alerted to
complaints from consumers concerning websites related to a company
called Lifestyle Legal".

"These websites apply dark pattern marketing methods to
misleadingly appear to offer loans and/or free loan-finding
services. Consumers who frequent these websites are induced to
conclude ‘agreements' for unwanted services and are shocked when
they realise amounts are being deducted from their bank accounts.

"Consumers who are able to reverse these debits begin to receive a
barrage of threats and harassment from the relevant company, which
also threatens to blacklist or take legal action against consumers
in the event that consumers do not make payment in terms of the
agreements."

The clinic argues that Lifestyle Legal's behaviour is unfair under
the Consumer Protection Act [CPA] and that "their demands for
and/or collection of payment are unconscionable in terms of section
40 of the CPA, or alternatively unlawful under the common law".

According to SU Law Clinic senior attorney Stephan van der Merwe,
the class action will enable the clinic to request "restoration of
moneys illegally debited and compensation for resulting losses on
behalf of thousands of consumers who were affected by the
respondents' conduct".

What do you do if you have been a victim of Lifestyle Legal?

Van der Merwe has confirmed that the Cape Town High Court has
certified that the following consumers will automatically form part
of the class action against Lifestyle Legal and their websites:

"All persons who have had any monies debited from their bank
accounts and/or who have been harassed and threatened in connection
with any demand for or collection of payment by any of the
respondents at any time from May 20 2015 to date on the basis of
their having concluded purported agreements with any of the
respondents through any of the websites listed below:

https://www.loantrackersa.co.za
https://www.loanspottersa.co.za
https://www.loanmatchsa.co.za
https://wwwloanchoicesa.co.za
https://www.loanquestsa.co.za
https://www.loanconnectorsa.co.za
https://www.loanhubsa.co.za
https://www.loanzones.co.za
https://www.loanlocatorsa.co.za
https://www.loanscoutsa.co.za
https://www.loantracer.co.za

"Should you wish to not be a member of the class action, you may
opt out of it by notifying the class action attorneys of record,
the Stellenbosch University Law Clinic, by no later than October
1.

"If you do not opt out of the class, you will form part thereof
without the need to inform us accordingly. We would advise that you
maintain your own records of your dealings with the relevant
website and that you check in on our webpage and follow our social
media on a regular basis for updates on the case."[GN]

MAXIMUS INC: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked for Call Center Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAREY THOMAS, et al., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. Case No. 3:21-cv-00498 (E.D.
Va., July 30, 2021) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of Sections 206, 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"), the Kentucky Wage and
Hour Act ("KWHA" or "Kentucky Act"), the Louisiana Revised Statutes
("LWPA" or "Louisiana Wage Payment Act"), Mississippi common law,
Missouri common law, and Texas common law.

The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action
under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), while
the additional state law claims are asserted as class actions under
Federal Rule Plaintiffs' Original Class/Collective Action Complaint
of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who have worked for MAXIMUS in call centers
throughout the United States, at any time during the relevant time
period(s) and have not been paid for all hours worked nor the
correct amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law.

Specifically, MAXIMUS has enforced a uniform company-wide policy
wherein it improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center
employees -- Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members -- to
perform work off-the-clock and without pay in violation of state
and federal law, says the suit.

MAXIMUS's alleged illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiffs
and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek.

Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one
and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek, added the suit.

Maximus Inc., trademarked as MAXIMUS, is an American outsourcing
company that provides business process services to government
health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia,
Canada, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev Antell, Esq.
          Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
          Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
                  craig@butlercurwood.com
                  zev@butlercurwood.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

MERRICK GARLAND: Denial of Murphy Class Status Bid Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. MURPHY, v.
MERRICK GARLAND, et al., , Case No. 1:21-cv-00070-CCC-KM (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommends that
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class be denied without prejudice to
being brought at a later time.

This case involves a pro se plaintiff, James E. Murphy, who has
filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1331(2) and 1343.

A copy of the Court's recommendation dated July 27, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AauRzo at no
extra charge.[CC]


MUFG UNION BANK: Taylor Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOZETTE D. TAYLOR, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21 ST CV 27530 (Cal. Superior Ct., July 27,
2021) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. PAGA permits "aggrieved
employees" to bring a lawsuit as a representative action on behalf
of the general public as private attorney general and all other
current and former aggrieved employees, to recover civil penalties
and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants violated various provisions
of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges that Defendants
implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages
resulting from Defendant's: (a) failure to accurately pay overtime
wages as required by Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 (b) failure
to pay timely wages required by Labor Code sections 203, 204 and
(c) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as
required by Labor Code section 226.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in their Torrance and
Lakewood, California branches, in March 2010 through July 2020, as
a Non-Exempt Employee, working as a Branch Service Officer.

Defendants operate at various store locations throughout the state
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Tel: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DUGAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
LLC, , Case No. 1:21-CV-00341-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting relief from the 90 day
deadline for filing motion for class certification and the Court
set deadline at a later date.

The Plaintiff commenced action April 30, 2021 against Defendant
Nationstar Mortgage for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA),
the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(UDTPA), negligence, and conversion.

On July 26, 2021, Counsel for Plaintiff contacted Counsel for
Defendant for consent to the Court modifying the 90-day period in
LR 23.1(b). Defendant consents to the relief requested of extending
Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification, and reserves
all objections as to scope of discovery and the propriety of
certification. The Plaintiff requires written discovery and
deposition testimony to satisfy burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Nationstar offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AefTbK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
          Asa C. Edwards, Esq.
          MAGINNIS HOWARD
          N.C. Bar No. 46000
          7706 Six Forks Rd., Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
                  kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
                  aedwards@maginnishoward.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com

NEW SCHOOL: First Amended Amable Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH AMABLE and KAITLYN AMABLE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW
SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-3811 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Amable and Kaitlyn Amable bring the putative
class action against The New School, alleging that the Defendant's
transition to online classes in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic
deprived students of the educational experience for which they had
bargained.  The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendant for
(1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) conversion, and
(4) money had and received.

In January 2020, Plaintiff Kaitlyn Amable ("Amable") began the
spring 2020 semester as an undergraduate student at The New School,
a private university in New York City that enrolls over 10,000
students and offers approximately 80 "different degree/diploma
programs and majors."  Amable was pursuing a Bachelor of Fine Arts
degree in Defendant's "Communication Design" program, which "relies
extensively on in-person instruction, peer collaboration, and
access to the Defendant's facilities."  Amable and her mother, also
a Plaintiff in the Action, collectively paid the Defendant
approximately $15,000 in tuition and fees for the spring 2020
semester.

Although the spring semester began on Jan. 21, 2020 and proceeded
unremarkably for the next eight weeks, the COVID-19 pandemic
brought normal university operations to an abrupt halt in
mid-March.  The Defendant suspended in-person teaching for the
remainder of the spring semester.  Thus, from March 12 until the
end of the semester on May 11, all classes were conducted online.

The Plaintiffs allege that by shifting its instruction to an online
format, the "Defendant did not deliver the educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that they and the putative
class contracted and paid for."  In other words, the Plaintiffs
contend that under their contractual agreement with the Defendant,
they agreed to pay tuition and fees in exchange for in-person
academic instruction and related services.

According to the Plaintiffs, the transition to online instruction
not only violated their contractual agreement with the Defendant,
but also produced a learning environment that was "subpar in
practically every aspect."  In particular, they point to the "lack
of facilities, materials, and access to faculty," as well as the
lost "opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person
dialogue, feedback, and critique."  They argue that the remote
instruction offered during the pandemic "was not even remotely
worth" the amount they contracted for and paid under the
expectation that classes would be taught in-person.  Yet, despite
allegedly violating its contractual agreement with the Plaintiffs
and providing an inferior alternative to regular, in-person
instruction, the Defendant has not refunded "any" of the tuition or
fees the Plaintiffs paid for the spring 2020 semester.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that although the Defendant may "not have had a
choice in cancelling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it did not provide."

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brought claims for (1) breach of
contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) conversion, and (4) money had
and received on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.  They seek disgorgement of a
pro-rated portion of tuition and fees proportionate to the amount
of time that classes were offered online "and campus services
ceased being provided."  The Plaintiffs also seek an order
certifying a class and subclass under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, an order of restitution "and all other forms of equitable
monetary relief," any injunctive relief deemed proper, and an order
awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to the putative class counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on May 15, 2020, and
their First Amended Complaint on Sept. 2, 2020.  On Sept. 16, 2020,
the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a
motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs responded the following
week.  Following a pre-motion conference on Oct. 7, 2020, the Court
adopted a briefing schedule for the instant Motion.  Pursuant to
this schedule, the Defendant filed the instant Motion and
supporting papers on Nov. 20, 2020.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition papers on Dec. 23, 2020, and, after receiving leave to
file an oversized brief, the Defendant filed its Reply on Jan. 7,
2021.  On Feb. 2, 2021, the Defendant provided notice of
supplemental authority supporting the instant Motion.  On March 26,
2021, the Plaintiffs offered supplemental authority in opposition
to same.  On March 31, 2021, the Defendant responded to the
Plaintiffs' proffer of supplemental authority and offered
additional authority in support of its Motion.  Finally, the
Defendant submitted an additional notice of supplemental authority
on April 26, 2021.

Analysis

The Plaintiffs' principal claim is that the Defendant breached a
contractual obligation to "provide in-person educational services,
experiences, opportunities, and other related services" when it
transitioned to online classes and modified its operations in the
wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  In the alternative, they also
assert claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received.

1. Educational Malpractice

As a threshold matter, Judge Karas considers the Defendant's
argument that the Plaintiffs have raised impermissible "educational
malpractice" claims.  "Educational malpractice" claims, which "ask
the Court to involve itself in the subjective professional
judgments of trained educators," are "not cognizable under New York
law."  Courts have therefore "refused to substitute their judgment
for that of university officials or to review the day-to-day
administration of academic policies.

When the "essence of the complaint is that the school breached its
agreement to provide an effective education," or the plaintiffs ask
a court "to evaluate the course of instruction" or "review the
soundness of the method of teaching that has been adopted by an
educational institution," a court must dismiss the complaint.
Although students may still plead a viable breach of contract claim
against their college or university where the institution is
alleged to have breached a specific promise, plaintiffs may not
survive a motion to dismiss by packaging an educational malpractice
claim as a claim for breach of contract.

In the case, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract and other claims are merely "repackaged educational
malpractice claims."  Judge Karas opines that the Defendant's
argument has some merit, particularly to the extent the Plaintiffs
draw explicit comparisons between the alleged quality of in-person
versus online courses.  As noted, the Plaintiffs assert that the
post-pandemic instruction offered online was "in no way the
equivalent of the in-person education which they contracted and
paid for," nor was it "remotely worth" the charged tuition.  To the
extent the Plaintiffs ask the Court to evaluate the quality of a
particular method of instruction, the Judge will not "enter the
classroom and determine whether the judgments and conduct of
professional educators were deficient."

2. Breach of Contract

As a general matter, "to state a claim for breach of contract, a
plaintiff must allege the existence of an agreement; adequate
performance of the contract by the plaintiff; breach of contract by
the defendant; and damages."  The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiffs have not identified a specific promise in which it
agreed to provide exclusively in-person instruction, and that, even
if there were such a promise, Plaintiffs cannot adequately plead
the breach or damages elements of their contract claim.  The
Defendant also argues that this claim should be dismissed under the
doctrines of acceptance and impossibility of performance.

Judge Karas dismisses the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim to
the extent this claim is based on the Defendant's alleged promise
to provide exclusively in-person classes.  Because he inds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to "identify a specifically designated and
discrete promise" to this effect, the Judge need not reach the
Defendant's arguments regarding breach, damages, impossibility of
performance, acceptance, or its reservation of rights.

To the extent the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is premised
on the Defendant's failure to provide access to in-person
"services, facilities," and other "opportunities" in exchange for
mandatory student fees, the claim must still be dismissed, albeit
for different reasons.  The Plaintiffs do not allege that the
Defendant charged a lesser amount for an online version of the same
program in which Amable was enrolled.

3. Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiffs bring an unjust enrichment claim in the alternative
to their contract claim.  They allege that the Defendant has
retained tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester despite
failing to provide "the education, experience, and services for
which the tuition and fees were collected, making its retention
unjust under the circumstances."

Judge Karas opines that because the Parties do "not dispute that
they shared a contractual relationship" and because the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim is "indistinguishable from their contract
claim," he dismisses the unjust enrichment claim.  The Plaintiffs'
"unjust-enrichment claim aims to recover the same payments (tuition
and fees) as their contract-breach claim and is based on the same
allegedly breaching conduct."  Likewise, the Parties do not dispute
that they shared a contractual relationship, there is an implied
contract between a student and her college or university.

4. Money Had and Received

Finally, the Plaintiffs have also brought a claim for money had and
received.  Like unjust enrichment, a cause of action for money had
and received "is one of quasi-contract."  Money had and received
has been described as "an obligation which the law creates in the
absence of agreement when one party possesses money that in equity
and good conscience the party ought not to retain and that belongs
to another."  Where the parties are in a contractual relationship
and the Plaintiff's claim for money had and received "merely
duplicates a defective breach of contract claim," courts will
dismiss the claim for money had and received.  Accordingly, for the
same reasons he is dismissing the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim, Judge Karas also dismisses their claim for money had and
received.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Karas granted the Defendant's
Motion.  Because it is the first adjudication of the Plaintiffs'
claims on the merits, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice.  To the extent the Plaintiffs have a good faith
basis for filing a second amended complaint, they must do so within
30 days of the date of the Opinion & Order. Failure to properly and
timely amend will result in dismissal of the First Amended
Complaint with prejudice.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the pending Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fye4z468 from Leagle.com.

Alec M. Leslie, Esq. -- aleslie@bursor.com -- Sarah Westcot, Esq.
-- swestcot@bursor.com -- Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. --
pfraietta@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., in New York City,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Jonathan M. Kozak, Esq. -- Jonathan.Kozak@jacksonlewis.com -- Isaac
J. Burker, Esq. -- Isaac.Burker@jacksonlewis.com -- Susan D.
Friedfel, Esq. -- Susan.Friedfel@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., in White Plains, NewY, Counsel for Defendant.


NORMAN BARWIN: Agrees to $13M Settlement Over Fertility Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
theguardian.com reports that hundreds of victims of a disgraced
Canadian fertility doctor, including more than a dozen children
conceived using his sperm, are set to share a proposed $13.375m
(GBP7.707m) class-action settlement - the first of its kind in the
world.

An Ontario court certified a class action suit against Ottawa-based
Norman Barwin. The legal action was first launched in 2016.

For decades, Barwin was a highly sought after fertility doctor -
dubbed "Baby God" for his success rate - and was even awarded the
Order of Canada.

But nearly four decades ago, couples began to question his
methodology.

In 1989, Davina and David Dixon sought Barwin's help to conceive.
They grew suspicious after their daughter, Rebecca, did not
resemble her parents. When she developed celiac disease - in spite
of nobody else in the family suffering from the illness - her
parents approached Barwin for a DNA sample.

The doctor refused to comply, but the Dixons were able to compare
Rebecca's DNA with that of another of Barwin's patients - and found
a match. At 25, she learned that Barwin was her biological father.

"I was in shock. Something inside me shifted. It made me feel like
my existence was something to be ashamed of," Dixon told the Ottawa
Citizen in 2019.

Barwin is alleged to have told couples that the male partner's
sperm would be used. Instead, they were unknowingly given random
samples, and in some cases Barwin's own sperm.

Barwin did not notify his patients of the errors, leaving them to
discover years later the truth about their children's paternity.

Under the proposed settlement, former patients and children will be
eligible for up to C$50,000 ( GBP29,000) in damages. A judge must
approve the settlement before any money is made available.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario suspended Barwin
in 2013 after he admitted to inseminating four women using the
wrong sperm. He resigned his medical licence in 2014.

In 2019, Barwin was deemed incompetent by the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario, which described the former doctor's
behaviour as "beyond reprehensible" and said the damage he caused
will last for generations.

"It is the most egregious violation of a patient's trust. These
patients came to Dr Barwin and trusted him to help them start a
family," said Carolyn Silver, the college's senior counsel. The
college ordered him to pay costs of C$10,370.

The civil lawsuit also calls for a DNA database to be set up to
help children identify their father or discover any siblings. It
will also help men who stored sperm with Barwin determine if it had
been used without their permission.[GN]

OATLY GROUP: Faces Bentley Suit Over 7.8% Drop of Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA BENTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OATLY GROUP AB, TONI PETERSSON, CHRISTIAN
HANKE, FREDRIK BERG, STEVEN CHU, ANN CHUNG, BERNARD HOURS, HANNAH
JONES, MATTIAS KLINTEMAR, PO SING (TOMAKIN) LAI, ERIC MELLOUL,
BJORN OSTE, FRANCES RATHKE, YAWEN WU, and TIM ZHANG, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06485 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially false
and misleading registration statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission about Oatly's financial metrics,
sustainability, and growth in China in order to trade Oatly's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices
between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that during the Class
Period, Oatly (a) overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital
expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) overstated its
sustainability practices and impact; (c) exaggerated its growth in
China; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements
about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading
during the Class Period.

When the truth emerged, the price of Oatly ADSs allegedly fell
2.8%, closing at $20.54 per ADS on July 14, 2021 and 5.16%, closing
at $19.48 per ADS on July 15, 2021, a two-day decline of 7.8%,
damaging investors.

Oatly Group AB is an oatmilk company with its headquarters in
Sweden. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         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

OATLY GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of September 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ: OTLY)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 24, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in OTLY:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?id=18122&from=5

Oatly Group AB NEWS - OTLY NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Oatly
Group AB made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins,
revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics;
(b) the Company overstated its sustainability practices and impact;
(c) the Company exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a
result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations,
business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Oatly you have until September 24, 2021 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Oatly securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the OTLY lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

About Klein Law

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.[GN]


OATLY GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTLY)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 21-cv-06485, is on behalf of all purchasers of
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Oatly between May 20, 2021
and July 15, 2021 (the "Class Period"), against Oatly and certain
of its officers and/or directors, for violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act" or "Exchange Act") and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Oatly
securities during the Class Period, you have until September 24,
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.

Oatly describes itself as the world's original and largest oatmilk
company. It is organized under the laws of Sweden.

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: Oatly (a)
overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and
market share financial metrics; (b) overstated its sustainability
practices and impact; (c) exaggerated its growth in China; and (d)
as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its
operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the
Class Period.

Oatly held its initial public offering ("IPO") in the United States
on or around May 20, 2021, offering and selling 84,376,000 American
Depositary Shares (including 19,688,000 from certain shareholders)
at a price of $17 per share. Each ADS represents one Oatly ordinary
share. The IPO raised $1.4 billion for the Company.

Two months later, on July 14, 2021, before the markets opened,
short seller Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point")
issued a report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment" (the
"Spruce Point Report" or the "Report"). The Report brought to light
a number of improprieties at Oatly, including improper accounting
practices and greenwashing (making the Company's product appear
more sustainable than it actually is), among other issues.

Over the next days, a number of media outlets reported on the
Spruce Point Report and its allegations about Oatly.

As this news hit the market, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 7.8% over
two trading days, falling from its close price of $21.13 on July
13, 2021, to a close price of $19.48 on July 14, 2021, on unusually
high trading volume.

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. [GN]

OHIO: Cooper & Damschroder Dismissed From Heyward v. AOCI & ORDC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lyle M. Heyward, Plaintiff, v. Heather Cooper, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-2499 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J.
Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division, (i) grants Defendants Heather Cooper and
Allysa Damschroder' motion to dismiss the claims asserted against
them, and (ii) denies Heyward's motion for an order to show cause.

Defendants Cooper and Damschroder are employees of Aramark
Correctional Services, which provides food services at
Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution ("AOCI") facility and other
facilities of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
("ODRC").

Defendants Cooper and Damschroder have filed a motion to dismiss
the claims asserted against them by pro se Plaintiff Heyward.
Heyward did not file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss
and the deadline for doing so has passed.  He has filed a motion
for an order to show cause, alleging certain individuals (who are
employed at the Marion Correctional Institution but not named as
Defendants in the litigation) have harassed him and attempted to
interfere with the pursuit of his claims in this and other cases.

Mr. Heyward filed a purported class action 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint, naming 13 other inmates as Plaintiffs, and alleging
various individuals employed by the AOCI and ODRC have engaged in a
variety of actions that have violated the Plaintiffs'
constitutional and civil rights, as well as the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act and the Ohio Valentine Anti-Trust Act.

Judge Helmick previously ruled Heyward cannot assert claims on
behalf of other inmates, whether named or as part of a class while
proceeding pro se.  He also denied Heyward's motion to deem service
had been perfected on all of the named Defendants and ordered him
perfect service no later than Nov. 20, 2020.  The Judge granted
Heyward's motion for an extension of that deadline until Dec. 16,
2020, and Heyward subsequently filed certified mail receipts for 22
of the named Defendants.

Mr. Heyward alleges Damschroder is an "Administrative Assistant in
the Prisoner's Cafe/Chow Hall/Kitchen."  Cooper, as the food
service director, "is responsible for overseeing and managing
foodservice operations at AOCI, including scheduling, inventorying,
ordering, hiring, and delegating orders to Aramark staff and
prisoners, and development and coaching/training of Aramark staff
and Prisoners."  Cooper and Damschroder argue Heyward's claims
against them should be dismissed for failure to perfect service of
process and for failure to state a claim.  Heyward did not file a
brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the deadline for
doing so has passed.

Mr. Heyward subsequently filed a motion for an order to show cause.
The motion is directed at the named Defendants in the case but
alleges misconduct only by ODRC employees who are not named as
Defendants (Plank, Brewer, Cotton, and Dinkin).

Analysis

A. Service of Process

Defendants Cooper and Damschroder first argue Heyward failed to
effect timely service of process because "service was not made
until over a year after the Complaint was filed," and not within
Rule 4's 90-day window.  They move to dismiss Heyward's claims
against them under Rule 12(b)(5).  Rule 4(m) does not set a hard
and fast deadline after which a plaintiff's case must be dismissed
if the plaintiff has not completed service.  Instead, that deadline
may be extended by the exercise of a court's discretion, through an
order directing the plaintiff to effect service within a designated
period of time.  Judge Helmick holds that the Defendants fail to
show Heyward's claims against them must be dismissed on this basis
because Heyward completed service on Cooper and Damschroder within
the time period he set.

The Defendants also argue the "Plaintiff cannot perfect service by
mailing the Complaint to the prison."  They do not provide any
authority in support of this assertion, which could result in the
invalidation of service of process on hundreds of defendants
annually in the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio
alone. Moreover, this argument fails to take into account that an
employee at AOCI accepted service of the complaint and summons on
behalf of Cooper and Damschroder, as permitted by Rule 4(e)(2)(C).
Cooper and Damschroder have not shown Heyward failed to accomplish
valid service under Rule 4(e)(2).

Because Cooper and Damschroder have not demonstrated service of
process was insufficient, Judge Helmick denies their motion to
dismiss on this basis.

B. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants Cooper and Damschroder offer two additional veins of
argument in support of their motion to dismiss.  The first is that
they are employees of a private company and therefore they cannot
be held liable under Section 1983 because they are not state actors
acting under the color of state law.

Judge Helmick finds this argument unpersuasive.  He says, the
Eighth Amendment requires that States, including Ohio, provide
"adequate food" to inmates.   The facts alleged in the Complaint
plainly support the conclusion that Cooper and Damschroder acted
under color of state law when they provided food services within
AOCI in place of the State of Ohio.

The Defendants' second argumentative vein -- that Heyward has not
plausibly alleged they violated his constitutional rights -- fares
better.  While Heyward asserts seven causes of action, only three
involve allegations against Cooper and Damschroder -- violation of
religious free exercise rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act ("RLUIPA"), denial of equal protection rights, and violation of
federal and state antitrust laws.

Judge Helmick holds that in none of these three claims does Heyward
include allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief against either of these Defendants.  As to Damschroder,
Heyward fails to allege facts which support a plausible inference
that Damschroder, as an administrative assistant, was "personally
involved in the alleged deprivation of federal rights."  Therefore,
the Judge grants the motion to dismiss as to the claims asserted
against Damschroder.

With respect to Cooper, Judge Helmick finds that while Heyward may
desire that the ODRC provide dates and arrange for Muslims to work
in the cafeteria preparing meals for other Muslims, he does not
allege he was forced to eat foods that he believes are
impermissible or that he did not have other means of accessing the
foods he desired to eat.  Heyward also has not established "more
than differential treatment alone," and, therefore, he fails to
state an equal protection violation.  Lastly, Heyward's Sherman Act
and Valentine Act claims are barred by the state action exemption
and his claims on that basis are dismissed.

C. Motion for Order to Show Cause

Finally, Heyward has filed a motion for an order to show cause.  He
alleges the named the Defendants "are all in one way or another
chronyisticly/nepotisticly associated/friends with the now MCI Unit
Manager V. Dinkins."  He contends he transferred from AOCI to
Marion Correctional Institution ("MCI") in retaliation for
exercising his First Amendment rights, and that individuals at MCI
have been retaliating against him since he arrived at that
institution.

Judge Helmick concludes that Heyward has not demonstrated a show
cause order is appropriate.  The alleged connection between the
named Defendants and the individuals at MCI is no more than
insinuation and presumption.  Moreover, Heyward does not allege
anyone actually has interfered with his right to file grievances or
his access to the courts, but only that the alleged "agents" of the
named Defendants "have a clear intent to confiscate and destroy the
Plaintiff's legal materials."  In short, Heyward offers only
speculation that his rights might be violated in the future. Such
speculation is not a basis for a show-cause order.  The Judge
denies his motion.

Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Helmick grants the motion of
Defendants Cooper and Damschroder to dismiss the claims asserted
against them.  Further, he denies Heyward's motion for a show cause
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxzbvz9c from Leagle.com.


PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Management of Accounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
pokertube.com reports that when Chris Moneymaker told PayPal
customer support that he would take them to court over the funds,
they quickly realised that his public profile had the potential to
cause more trouble than it was worth to keep the small sum.

The money was returned to Moneymaker who no doubt took great
delight in informing PayPal that with already close to 50
plaintiffs signed up to a class-action lawsuit it was too late to
stop the ball rolling.

That was a couple of months ago. Now there are in the region of 100
disgruntled customers lining up to try and claim back any money
they think has been unfairly withheld.

Attorney Eric Bensomachan says that interest in the case is growing
fast, no doubt helped by his standing in the poker community after
successfully defeating Mike Postle in court on behalf of WSOP
bracelet winner Todd Witteles.

Mike Matusow hasn't released any details of how much money PayPal
took from his account but he does sound excited at the possibility
of recouping at least some of it in the near future. [GN]



PAYROLL MADE: $220K Class Deal in Broughton Suit Has Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TED BROUGHTON, Plaintiff v PAYROLL MADE EASY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-41-NPM (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge
Nicholas P. Mizell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted the parties'
Second Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
and Notices to Settlement Class.

Plaintiff Broughton brought the action pursuant to a disclosure and
authorization provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
on behalf of himself and putative class members.  Broughton claims
Defendant Payroll Made Easy, Inc. d/b/a Continuum HR, unlawfully
obtained and used consumer reports for employment purposes for all
of its employees and job applicants.

The Plaintiff contends Continuum violated the FCRA by: (1)
procuring consumer reports for employment purposes without
providing lawful disclosures in advance; or (2) obtaining consumer
reports for employment purposes without obtaining lawful
authorization.  Specifically, he claims Continuum's disclosure and
authorization form contained the following deficiencies: (1) it did
not inform job applicants that a consumer reporting agency would be
compiling their consumer report information; (2) it failed to
disclose that the consumer report was being used for employment
purposes; and (3) it contained an impermissible liability waiver
purporting to release Continuum and its agents and any entity
providing information included in the investigation into the
applicant's background.

Continuum denies these allegations and denies it committed any FCRA
violations.

On May 5, 2020, the parties attended a mediation and were able to
reach a settlement in principal.  They thereafter executed a
Settlement Agreement and filed a Second Amended Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class,
seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement so that
they may send notice to the putative class members.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to a
gross settlement of $220,000 to resolve the claims.  The Settlement
Agreement provides that $97,392 of the settlement-claim fund will
be distributed to class members who applied for employment between
Jan. 17, 2018, through Jan. 17, 2020 -- 602 individuals -- and who
submit timely and valid claim forms.  If such a class member
submits a proper claim form, the class member will receive $161.78.
Any unclaimed funds revert back to Continuum.  
The Agreement also provides that $24,348 of the settlement-claim
fund will be distributed to those members of who applied for
employment between Jan. 17, 2015, through Jan. 16, 2018 -- 538
individuals -- and who submit timely and valid claim forms with any
unclaimed funds reverting back to Continuum.  If such a class
member submits a proper claim form, the class member will receive
$45.25.

If approved by the Court, the parties agree to disburse from the
settlement-claim fund attorneys' fees not to exceed $73,260,
mediation costs, and payment to the Settlement Administrator of no
more than $20,000.

In addition, if approved by the Court, Broughton will receive
$5,000 as consideration for his agreement to execute a general
release and a Supplemental Settlement Agreement.

Mr. Broughton defines the class as follows: "All natural persons
residing in the United States (including all territories and other
political subdivisions of the United States) for whom Continuum HR
procured a consumer report for employment purposes using the same
or substantially similar FCRA consent form as provided by Continuum
HR to Plaintiff from Jan. 17, 2015, until the date of settlement
approval(the Settlement Class) -- a class of approximately 1,140
people, with approximately 602 individuals in the two-year statute
of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the
Complaint (Two Year Class) and approximately 538 individuals in the
three to five-year statute of limitations period preceding the date
the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Three Year Class)."

The parties agree to send separate notices and claim forms to each
sub-class, which are divided by when the putative class member
applied for employment.

They propose confirmation schedule as modified and set forth
below:

     a. Settlement Administrator mails notice (Notice Date) -
Within 14 days of Preliminary Approval Order

     b. Deadline for Objections - 60 days after Notice is mailed by
Settlement Administrator

     c. Deadline for Opt-Outs (Exclusion Requests) - 60 days after
Notice is mailed by Settlement Administrator

     d. Deadline for Filing Claim - 60 days after Notice is mailed
by Settlement Administrator

     e. Certification by Settlement Administrator - 30 days before
Fairness/Final Approval Hearing Notice provisions of compliance
with

     f. Deadline for Motion for Approval of Fees and Costs - 28
days before the Fairness Hearing/Final Approval Approval Hearing of
Class Action

     g. Fairness/Final Approval Hearing - To be set at least 125
days after Preliminary Approval Order

Lastly, in the Settlement Agreement, the parties seek entry of a
final judgment: "reserving to the Court continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over the parties with respect to the settlement and
the Final Judgment."

Judge Mizell finds the Settlement Agreement represents a fair and
reasonable resolution of the action.  Accordingly, he preliminary
approves the Settlement Agreement.  He also finds Broughton has
satisfied all of the requirements for class certification and as a
result, he finds the settlement class, as defined, is conditionally
certified for settlement purposes.  All notices and other
information for the class members (e.g. the website) must define
the class in the same manner as the Court has preliminarily
approved.

As so modified, the class is defined as: "All natural persons
residing in the United States (including all territories and other
political subdivisions of the United States) for whom Continuum HR
procured a consumer report for employment purposes using the same
or substantially similar FCRA consent form as provided by Continuum
HR to Plaintiff from Jan. 17, 2015 to Jan. 17, 2020 (the Settlement
Class) -- a class of approximately 1,140 people, with approximately
602 individuals in the two-year statute of limitations period
preceding the date the Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Two Year
Class) and approximately 538 individuals in the three to five-year
statute of limitations period preceding the date the Plaintiff
filed the Complaint (Three Year Class)."

Accordingly, the Second Amended Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement Class is granted;
the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved; the class as
defined is conditionally certified; attorney Marc Reed Edelman is
appointed as the class counsel and Plaintiff Broughton is appointed
as the class representative; the Notices and Claim Forms are
approved; and the final confirmation schedule set forth in the
Order is approved.  The Court will set the fairness hearing by
separate notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypyfsd5d from Leagle.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Semple Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry, are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 has yet
to be served with the complaint in the class action suit entitled,
Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees  (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.


Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Suzanne Jacklin
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Kunta Class Suit Ongoing in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry, are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry, are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.

He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman disclosed purchasers of Piedmont Lithium Inc.
(NASDAQ: PLL) securities between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021,
inclusive ("Class Period") have until September 21, 2021 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Piedmont Lithium class action
lawsuit. The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit charges Piedmont
Lithium and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Piedmont Lithium class action
lawsuit (Skeels v. Piedmont Lithium Inc.,No. 21-cv-04161) was
commenced on July 23, 2021 in the Eastern District of New York and
is assigned to Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Piedmont Lithium
class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking
here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller
by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than September 21, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Piedmont
Lithium has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline
to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii) Piedmont Lithium
failed to inform relevant people and governmental authorities of
its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont Lithium failed to file proper
applications with relevant governmental authorities (including
state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont Lithium and its lithium
business does not have "strong local government support"; and (v)
as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On July 20, 2021, Reuters published an article entitled "In push to
supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North Carolina neighbors" which
reported the following, among other things, regarding Piedmont
Lithium's regulatory issues in North Carolina: "The company,
however, has not applied for a state mining permit or a necessary
zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte, despite
telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of doing so.
Five of the seven members of the county's board of commissioners,
who control zoning changes, say they may block or delay the project
. . . ." On this news, Piedmont Lithium's stock price fell nearly
20%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Piedmont
Lithium securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Piedmont
Lithium class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Piedmont Lithium class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Piedmont Lithium class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. [GN]


PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willie James Lafayette, Jerrell McCleve, Quincey Harris, Hasson Q.
Galloway and Tyrone Santiago, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-14032, (D. N.J., July 22, 2021) seeks redress for
unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Pro Custom Solar operates as "Momentum Solar," a clean energy
company based in New Jersey. Plaintiffs are African-American
employees of Momentum Solar. They claim to be terminated on the
basis of race, particularly being black. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: trahman@wigdorlaw.com
             mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com


REGGIANO CORP: Galvez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------
PAULINO GALVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGGIANO CORP. (D/B/A SPIGA TO GO) and LUIGI
COREA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06483 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 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, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide wage
notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unlawful
tip deductions.

Mr. Galvez was employed as a dishwasher and a delivery worker at
the Spiga To Go restaurant located at 55 W. 84th St., New York, New
York from approximately January 2018 until June 30, 2021.

Reggiano Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Spiga To Go located at 55 W. 84th St., New York, 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

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Suit Remanded to Spokane Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington issued an order on pending motions in the
case, ISAAC GORDON, an individual, and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0390-TOR (E.D.
Wash.).

Among other decisions, the Court remands the case to the Spokane
County Superior Court for all further proceedings.

The case concerns the "Refer a Friend" ("RAF") marketing feature
from the Defendant's online investment brokerage application, which
the Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection
Act ("CPA") by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act
("CEMA").  

On Jan. 25, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.  It appointed Isaac Gordon as the Class
Representative; Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as the Class
Counsel; and Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland of Cameron
Sutherland, PLLC as the Co-Class Counsel.

On Feb. 24, 2021, the Court granted the applications of E. Michelle
Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC to appear pro hac
vice for the Plaintiff.  On March 11, 2021, the Court appointed E.
Michelle Drake as the co-class counsel.  On April 27, 2021, the
Court granted the parties' Joint Proposed Class Notice Plan and
Stipulated Motion to Expedite.

On May 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Seal, Motion to
Stay, and Stipulated Motion to Expedite Motion to Stay and for a
Briefing Schedule.  It raised allegations that the lawsuit was
orchestrated by the transmittal of a text message by class
co-counsel's brother John Cameron.  The Defendant also alleges that
class co-counsel's son's friend (Nathan Budke) also sent a text
message to the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff contends his suit hinges on only one text
message sent on July 24, 2019.  Indeed, the First Amended Complaint
contains a screenshot of the text message, but the surrounding text
messaging conversation is redacted.  When questioned who sent him
the allegedly offending text message, the Plaintiff swore under
oath that he was "uncertain", that he was "uncertain" how they met,
that he was "uncertain" as to their relationship, and was he was
"uncertain" if the Plaintiff provided his phone number.  The Class
counsel electronically signed the answers to discovery as well.
Only after the Defendant investigated further and filed its motion
to stay with supporting allegations.

On May 26, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's Motions to Seal
and Stay.  In that Order, the Court stated that the proceeding,
including all deadlines, class discovery, and class notice is
stayed pending Defendant's discovery into these new allegations.

Discussion

A. Motion to Withdraw Isaac Gordon as Class Representative

Plaintiff Isaac Gordon seeks to withdraw as the only class
representative in the case.  No one opposes his withdrawal.
Additionally, serious issues have been raised as to consent and the
role that theclass-counsel and his brother played in initiating the
transmittal of the text message that forms the basis of the
Plaintiff's suit.  Further, the stripping of the surrounding text
messages and deceptive answers to discovery provide additional
grounds to disqualify the Plaintiff as class representative.  
Accordingly, Isaac Gordon is removed as the class representative.

B. Motion to Decertify Class and Disqualify Class Counsel

The Defendant seeks to decertify the class.  The Class counsel do
not oppose decertification.  Additionally, serious issues have been
raised that individualized inquiries will be necessary to determine
the circumstances, relationship and consent (apparent or express)
of each class member and the person who sent the text message.
Additionally, the sender and class member may have profited from
the transmittal of the text message.  Accordingly, Judge Rice
decertifies the class.

The Defendant also seeks to disqualify the class counsel from
representing the class.  It contends four reasons support
disqualification without specifying which counsel are directly
responsible; (1) the class counsel's misrepresentations and role in
manufacturing the Plaintiff's claim, (2) the class counsel's status
as material fact witnesses, (3) the class counsel's conflicts with
the class and each other, and (4) the class counsel's untenable
working relationship.  Without a full evidentiary record with which
to make adequate findings, Judge Rice is hesitant to disqualify
counsel at this time.  Accordingly, the motion to disqualify is
denied.

C. Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

E. Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC seek to
withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Isaac Gordon.  The Plaintiff
continues to be represented by local counsel, Kirk D. Miller of
Kirk D. Miller, P.S., and Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J.
Sutherland, of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC.  The counsel represent
that Mr. Gordon approves of their withdrawal and that withdrawal
will not affect Berger Montague's willing participation in
discovery related to the Defendant's misconduct allegations.

The Defendant opposes the motion to withdraw or in the alternative
ask the Court to defer ruling until the motion to decertify and
disqualify are filed.

The class has now been decertified.  For good cause shown, E.
Michelle Drake and Sophia M. Rios of Berger Montague PC's motion to
withdraw as counsel and class counsel is granted.  The motion to
expedite the same is denied as moot.  

D. Sua Sponte Consideration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court notes that it is well established that "a court may raise
the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any
time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal."  "Courts
must consider" challenges to subject matter jurisdiction "sua
sponte."  "Tardy jurisdictional objections" occasion wasted court
resources and "disturbingly disarm litigants."

The basis for the Court's jurisdiction was that the class action
concerned an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million thereby
invoking 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  The matter is no longer a
class action and the amount at issue does not exceed $5 million.
Even if the Court were to invoke the basic diversity of citizenship
statute as to the Plaintiff's single allegation of a violation of
CEMA, subject matter jurisdiction fails because Plaintiff Isaac
Gordon's damages do not exceed $75,000.  Accordingly, the matter
must be remanded back to the State Court.

E. Remaining Motions

All remaining motions concern discovery in the matter.  Because the
Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, all remaining
motions are denied as moot.  The State Court is now the forum to
decide those issues.

Order

In light of the foregoing, Judge Rice ordered the following:

      1. The telephonic hearing scheduled Sept. 2, 2021 is
stricken;

      2. Brian Cameron's Motion to Intervene to File Motion to
Quash or Modify Subpoena or, Alternatively, Motion for Protective
Order Regarding Subpoena is denied as moot;

      3. Brian Cameron's Motion to Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and
for FRE 502(d) Non-Waiver or Alternatively, Grant Protective Order
is denied as moot;

      4. Ewan Cameron's Motion to Quash/Modify is denied as moot;

      5. John Cameron's Motion to Quash/Modify Subpoena is denied
as moot;

      6. Non-Party Nathan Budke's Motion to Quash or Modify
Defendant's Subpoenas to Nathan Budke is denied as moot;

      7. Non-Party Nathan Budke's Motion to Intervene and Quash or
Modify Defendant's Subpoena to AT&T is denied as moot;

      8. Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and for
FRE 502(d) Non-Waiver or Alternatively, Grant Protective Order is
denied as moot;

      9. Berger Montague's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is
granted;

      10. Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Isaac Gordon as Class
Representative is granted;

      11. Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite BMPC's Motion to Withdraw
is denied as moot;

      12. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of Ewan
Cameron is denied as moot;

      13. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of
Nathan Budke is denied as moot;

      14. Defendant's Motion to Compel Subpoena Compliance of John
Cameron is denied as moot;

      15. Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and Disqualify
Class Counsel is granted in part;

      16. The Combined Motion for Protective Order is denied as
moot; and

      17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), this matter is
remanded to the Spokane County Superior Court for all further
proceedings (former Spokane County Superior Court Cause No.
19-2-04574-32).

The District Court Executive is directed to enter the Order,
furnish copies to the counsel, mail a certified copy of the Order
to the Clerk of the Spokane County Superior Court, and close the
file.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/af25c3bc from Leagle.com.


ROBINHOOD SECURITIES: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Movant Blue
Laine-Beveridge, pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, asks the Order to enter an order:

   1. appointing Movant as Lead Plaintiff on behalf of persons
      or entities who sold any of the Affected Securities via
      the Robinhood trading platform on or after January 28,
      2021 as a result of Robinhood's restrictions for
      violations under the federal securities laws;

   2. approving Movant's selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      (Rosen Law) as Lead Counsel; and

   3. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
      just and proper.

On April 1, 2021, pursuant to the Transfer Order, many actions
asserting claims under the federal securities laws were
centralized, including Muncy v. Robinhood Securities, LLC, et al.,
Daniels v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al., Cobos v. Robinhood
Financial LLC, et al., Diamond v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et al.,
Lagmanson v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., and Krumenacker v.
Robinhood Financial LLC, et al., (collectively with the Muncy
Action, the "Securities Allegations Actions").

Following the Transfer Order, additional cases asserting claims
under the federal securities laws can be and were filed and
centralized including Best et al v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, et
al. Defendant Robinhood Financial, LLC purports to operate as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company purports to provide
online and mobile application-based discount stock brokerage
solutions that allows users to invest in publicly-traded companies
and exchange-traded funds.

Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC is registered as a
broker-dealer with the SEC. Robinhood Securities, LLC acts as a
clearing broker and clears trades introduced by its affiliate
Defendant Robinhood Financial. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is
the corporate parent of Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC and
Robinhood Securities, LLC.

The Doe Defendants are individuals and entities, including hedge
funds, that took short positions in the Affected Securities
(defined below), conspired to negatively affect the market price of
the Affected Securities, and disarm and silence individual
investors.

After Robinhood restricted trading of the Affected Securities on
its trading platform, the price of the Affected Securities fell
dramatically. For example, that same day, AMC shares fell $11.27
per share, or 56%, to close at $8.63 per share, BB shares fell
$10.45 per share, or 41%, to close at $14.65 per share, BBBY shares
fell $19.25 per share, or 46%, to close at $33.64 per share, GME
shares fell $153.91 per share, or 44%, to close at $193.60 per
share, and NOK ADSs fell $1.86 per ADS, or 28%, to close at $4.69
per ADS.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Affected
Security’s shares, movant and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

A copy of the Movant's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ysCS2j at no extra charge.[CC]

[Proposed] Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff, are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Michael Cohen, Esq.
          Erica Stone, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: 11th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of McIntosh Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKKI McINTOSH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROYAL
CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-10562
(11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reverses the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, and remands for further proceedings.

A "cruise to nowhere" usually involves a ship sailing into
international waters for several days without any intermediate port
calls.  On such a cruise, it's supposedly the journey, and not the
destination, that matters.  This maritime negligence case involves
a different type of "cruise to nowhere" -- one that never departed.
The Liberty of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises, was
scheduled to sail from Galveston, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2017.  But
Hurricane Harvey -- a Category 4 storm that eventually made
landfall in Texas and Louisiana -- had other ideas, and Royal
Caribbean cancelled the cruise on the date of its scheduled
departure and offered refunds to the would-be passengers.

One of those passengers, McIntosh filed, on behalf of other
similarly situated passengers, a class-action complaint against
Royal Caribbean on several tort theories, including negligence,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent
infliction of emotional distress.  She alleged that Royal Caribbean
canceled the cruise and offered refunds only on the day the Liberty
of the Seas was set to sail.  Because the ticket contracts provided
that no refunds would be given for passenger cancelations within 14
days of the voyage, and because Royal Caribbean repeatedly told
passengers that they would lose their entire payments for the
cruise if they canceled, the Plaintiffs claimed that they were
forced to travel to Galveston and nearby areas (like Houston) as
Hurricane Harvey approached. She alleged that, while in Texas, they
were forced to endure hurricane-force conditions, and suffered
physical and emotional injuries.

In a series of orders, the district court ruled that the case could
not proceed as a class action due to a class-action waiver in the
passengers' ticket contracts; that the complaint failed to plead
damages sufficient to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement
for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; that the
Plaintiffs had not established maritime jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1333(1); and that the claims for intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress failed as a matter of
law.  After the district court ruled that the case could not
proceed as a class action, over 100 Plaintiffs filed a joint
amended complaint asserting individual claims.  Based upon these
rulings, the court dismissed the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs now appeal, challenging the district court's
jurisdictional and merits rulings.

Discussion

A.

The district court, acting sua sponte, ruled that the Plaintiffs
could not aggregate their emotional distress claims to satisfy the
$75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  It reasoned that the
Plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce rights in which they had a
common and undivided interest.  It also summarily stated that the
Plaintiffs' claims did not arise under federal maritime law so as
to provide for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1333(1).
The Eleventh Circuit holds that in ruling that diversity
jurisdiction was lacking, the district court committed two errors,
one procedural and one substantive.  Each one provides an
independent basis for reversal.  

First, the district court failed to give the Plaintiffs notice of
its intent to sua sponte address the matter of diversity
jurisdiction.  A federal court has an independent duty to ensure
that it has subject-matter jurisdiction.  And that means that it
can take up the issue of such jurisdiction on its own.  Second,
putting aside the aggregation of damages issue, the district court
failed to consider whether any individual Plaintiff had satisfied
the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.  The alleged
injuries and expenses -- accepted as true -- are sufficient to
plead damages that exceed the $75,000 amount-in-controversy
requirement.

The Eleventh Circuit adds one more observation.  It notes that the
district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  That was incorrect.  It
holds that if subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist, dismissal
must be without prejudice.

B.

On remand, the district court should also consider whether there is
maritime jurisdiction.  In one of its orders, the district court
said that maritime law applied to the Plaintiffs' claims.  But in a
later order, the district court summarily stated that the
Plaintiffs had not alleged any facts demonstrating federal-question
(i.e., maritime) jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit expresses no view on whether the torts alleged
by the Plaintiffs arise under or are governed by federal maritime
law.  On remand, even though diversity jurisdiction may exist as to
some or all of the Plaintiffs, the district court will need to
address whether any of their claims arise under federal maritime
law because the elements of a tort can differ under maritime law
and state law.

Should the district court conclude that there is maritime
jurisdiction, it will need to apply the "zone of interest" test the
Eleventh Circuit adopted in Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d
1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2012) to the negligent infliction of
emotional distress claim.  That test -- which includes an "impact
rule" -- also "allows recovery if a plaintiff is 'placed in
immediate risk of physical harm by the defendant's negligent
conduct.'"

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit reverses the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and remands for
further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.  Because of the
uncertainty over jurisdiction, the Court does not address the class
action waiver or the Plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction
of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uut6m2x from Leagle.com.


SD AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Pelico Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR PELICO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SD AUTOMOTIVE INC. (D/B/A SD AUTOMOTIVE) and DAVID
KLEIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04215 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2021) is brought
against Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York
Labor Law. Plaintiff seeks applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pelico, who was employed as a
mechanic at the Defendants' automotive repair shop, worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Pelico appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Defendants also maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Pelico and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, adds the complaint.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled an automotive repair
shop, located at 42 W Merrick Rd, Valley Stream, NY 11580 under the
name "SD Automotive." [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


SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING: Underpays Scaffolders, Fajardo Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL FAJARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKYLIMIT CONTRACTING LLC, and VEMA
CONTRACTING CORP. and JANETH QUIZHPI and JAIME LOPEZ, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04207 (E.D.N.Y., July 27,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants to recover damages for their alleged egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
August 2008 until in or around November 2020 to perform its primary
duties as a scaffolder, and other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked
from in or around July 2015 until in or around October 2020.
Despite working approximately 54 hours or more hours per week for
the Defendants from in or around July 2015 until in or around
November 2020, the Defendants allegedly denied the Plaintiff his
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. Also, the Defendants did pay the
Plaintiff an extra hour or "spread of hours" pay at the legally
prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours from in
or around August 2008 until in or around November 2020. Moreover,
the Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records,
and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wag
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, the suit
asserts.

Skylimit Contracting LLC and Vema Contracting Corp. operate as
construction companies. Janeth Quizhpi and Jaime Lopez own and
operates both Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STABLE ROAD: Hall Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Martin Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., Momentus
Inc., SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot, James Norris and Mikhail
Kokorich, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05943 (C.D. Cal., July 22,
2021), seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and
disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business
combination with one or more businesses. Momentus Inc. is currently
a private company that offers in-space infrastructure services by
building transfer and service vehicles that will carry satellites
and hosted payloads between orbits in space using an innovative
water-based propulsion system, a microwave electro-thermal water
plasma thruster. On October 7, 2020, Momentus announced that it had
signed a definitive merger agreement with Stable Road, resulting in
Momentus becoming a publicly traded entity.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Momentus had only
conducted a single in-space test which did not meet any of
Momentus's pre-launch evaluation criteria, that the sole in-space
test conducted by Momentus was never designed to test the
commercial viability of the company's thrusters, that Kokorich had
been informed that the U.S. Government considered him to be a
"threat" that caused his affiliation with another space technology
company to be a risk to national security, that, because Kokorich
was considered a national security risk, Momentus would face
challenges obtaining the necessary licenses and approvals for its
commercial launches and that, as a result, Kokorich's affiliation
with Momentus jeopardized, among other things, the company's launch
schedule and revenue projections which were based on assumptions
about the timing of the company's first commercial launch, that
Stable Road had not conducted adequate due diligence, including as
it relates to Momentus's testing progress and national security
concerns with Momentus's CEO, that, as a result of the failure to
disclose the foregoing, Stable Road was reasonably likely to face
regulatory scrutiny.

On this news, the company's share price fell $1.20, or over 10%, to
close at $10.68 per share on July 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. Hall purchased Stable Road securities and suffered
damages as a result of the federal securities law violations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
             clinehan@glancylaw.com
             prajesh@glancylaw.com


STABLE ROAD: Klein Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC)
Class Period: October 7, 2020 - July 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021

According to the complaint, Stable Road Acquisition Corp. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) Stable Road's acquistion target, 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; (b) the U.S.
government had conveyed that it considered Momentus's Chief
Executive Officer a national security threat, jeopardizing his
continued leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and
business prospects; (c) 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 (d) 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in SRAC:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/stable-road-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1

Learn about your recoverable losses in ATHA:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18123&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.[GN]

TARTE COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANY FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TARTE COSMETICS, INC., Case No.
2021L000101, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois on July 30, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03180-SEM-TSH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting the
Plaintiff's and Class members' facial geometry scans without first:
(a) obtaining consent to use their biometrics; (b) providing
written notice of the Defendant's use of biometrics; and (c) making
a written biometrics policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data available, and
actually adhering to that retention schedule with respect to the
deletion of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data.

Tarte Cosmetics, Inc. is an American cosmetics company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         One Logan Square
         130 North 18th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-5553
         Facsimile: (215) 832-5533
         E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com

                 - and –

         Andrew Schrag, Esq., Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 776-2521
         Facsimile: (312) 264-2461
         E-mail: ASchrag@BlankRome.com

                 - and –

         David J. Oberly, Esq.
         BLANK ROME LLP
         1700 PNC Center
         201 E. Fifth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 362-8711
         Facsimile: (513) 362-8798
         E-mail: DOberly@BlankRome.com

TESLA INC: Reportedly Agrees to $1.5M Settlement for Battery Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
pcmag.com reports that Tesla reportedly agreed to settle a
class-action lawsuit related to allegations of battery throttling
with a $1.5 million fund that could pay up to $625 to each of the
affected vehicle owners.

The lawsuit claimed an over-the-air update to the Tesla Model S
caused "significant harm" to Tesla's customers "in terms of reduced
range capabilities, longer battery charging times, and overall
decrease in the value" of their vehicles under the guise of
improving their safety.

There were legitimate safety concerns. Tesla released the firmware
update after a parked Model S caught fire in Hong Kong in May 2019.
The company said it was "revising charge and thermal management
settings on Model S and Model X vehicles" via the update to protect
its customers.

But this suit claimed Tesla "fraudulently manipulated its software
with the intent to avoid its duties and legal obligations to
customers to fix, repair, or replace the batteries of the Class
Vehicles, all of which Tesla knew were defective, yet failed to
inform its customers of the defects."

This particular suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, but similar lawsuits were filed
around the world. Earlier this year Tesla was ordered to pay
affected Model S and Model X customers $16,000 each because of the
same firmware updates.

CNBC said the settlement requires Tesla to "maintain diagnostic
software for in-warranty vehicles to notify owners and lessees of
vehicles that Tesla determines may need battery service or repair
for certain battery issues" in addition to establishing the $1.5
million fund. [GN]

TIREHUB LLC: Bid to Dismiss Jones' 1st Amended Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONSHEA JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIREHUB, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00564-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

A. Background

Plaintiff Jones brings the putative wage and hour class action
against Tirehub.  The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC for
failure to state a claim and for failure to plead exhaustion of
administrative remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2699, et seq.  In the
alternative, it moves for a more definitive statement under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).  The Plaintiff filed an opposition,
to which the Defendant replied.

The Defendant operates a national chain of tire distribution
centers which provide Bridgestone and Goodyear tires to tire and
automotive retailers.  The Plaintiff worked at one of the
Defendant's California centers as a driver and material handler
between Nov. 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021.

On Feb. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the action in Solano County
Superior Court alleging violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business & Professions Code.  On March 26, 2021, the
Defendant removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  Pursuant to a
stipulation, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 4,
2021.

The Plaintiff asserts the following state law claims against the
Defendant: (1) unlawful failure to pay wages in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 200-204, 510, 558, 1194, 1198; (2) failure to
provide meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Sections 226.7, 512; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226, 1174; (4)
failure to pay wages on termination in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Section 203; (5) unlawful business practices under California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200-17208; and (6) a PAGA claim.  The Plaintiff seeks monetary,
declaratory, and injunctive relief.

B. Analysis

1. PAGA Claim

The Defendant first moves to dismiss the PAGA claim, arguing the
Plaintiff failed to plead compliance with PAGA's administrative
notice requirements.  The Plaintiff did not attach a copy of his
PAGA notice letter to the complaint.  Instead, he contends he
substantively pled compliance.  The Defendant argues his
allegations are insufficient to show compliance with the PAGA
notice requirements under the Court's decision in Krauss v.
Wal-Mart Inc, No. 2:19-cv-00838-JAM-DB, 2020 WL 1874072, at *8-9
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2020).  In Kraus, the plaintiff similarly did
not attach a copy of the PAGA notice letter and provided bare-bones
allegations in her complaint.  The Court dismissed plaintiff's PAGA
claim, explaining that "without including the facts and theories
Plaintiff provided to LWDA in her complaint, the Court cannot
independently conclude that she has satisfied the requirements of
the statute as a matter of law."

The Plaintiff counters that Krauss is distinguishable "because he
has provided the Court with a copy of his LWDA letter" as an
exhibit to the opposition brief and because "the facts and theories
provided to the LWDA were integrated into the FAC."

Judge Mendez opines that both of these arguments fail.  First, the
facts and theories provided to the LWDA were not integrated into
the FAC: The Plaintiff did not allege what the contents of his PAGA
notice letter were including what facts and theories supported his
claim; instead, the Plaintiff merely pleads in conclusory terms
that he "complied."  Thus, as in Krauss, the Court "cannot
independently conclude that the Plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements of the statute as a matter of law."  Second, he says,
the Plaintiff attempts to demonstrate compliance through an
unauthorized introduction of extrinsic evidence beyond the
allegations in the FAC.  Accordingly, the Judge finds the Plaintiff
has not pled compliance with PAGA's notice requirements and
dismisses his PAGA claim.

2. Remaining Claims

The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unlawful failure to pay
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages on
termination, and unlawful business practices under the UCL.  The
Defendant contends all of these claims should be dismissed because
the FAC is devoid of factual allegations and simply recites the
elements of each claim.

Judge Mendez agrees and finds the FAC falls well short of what is
required under Iqbal, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007), and Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d
638, 644 (9th Cir. 2014).  He finds that the Plaintiff's
allegations lack factual specificity.  The lack of specificity
precludes the Court from making any plausible inferences about the
Defendant's conduct and fails to give the Defendant the fair notice
necessary to defend itself effectively.

Additionally, the Judge says, these allegations fall short of what
is required under Landers.  In Landers, the Ninth Circuit addressed
the specificity required for pleading wage and hour claims
following Twombly and Iqbal and held that "conclusory allegations
that merely recite the statutory language" are inadequate.  The
Ninth Circuit instructed that "at a minimum the plaintiff must
allege at least one workweek when he worked in excess of forty
hours and was not paid for the excess hours in that workweek, or
was not paid minimum wages."  The Court has twice applied Landers
to find that the "failure to plead at least one occasion on which
plaintiffs were impeded from taking a meal or rest break" warrants
dismissal.  In the case, the Plaintiff has not specifically pled or
identified any such occasions.

Lastly, the Plaintiff's UCL claim is predicated on his preceding
claims for violations of the California Labor Code.  Because he has
failed to sufficiently plead these underlying claims, the
Plaintiff's derivative UCL claim necessarily fails and is
dismissed.

3. Class Allegations

The Defendant's final argument is that the complaint fails to
establish entitlement to class relief.  First, it points out that
the Plaintiff alleges two inconsistent class definitions.  Further,
the Plaintiff identifies no commonality between her and the
putative class.  He did not respond to these arguments.  Therefore,
the Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed.

C. Leave to Amend

Courts dismissing claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) have discretion to permit amendment, and there is a strong
presumption in favor of leave to amend.  The Plaintiff's request
for leave to amend is granted.  Any amended complaint, however,
must contain facts that sufficiently support plausible causes of
action.

D. Sanctions

A violation of the Court's standing order requires the offending
counsel (not the client) to pay $50 per page over the page limit to
the Clerk of Court.  Moreover, the Court does not consider
arguments made past the page limit.  The Defendant's reply brief
exceeds the Court's page limit by 2 pages.  Its counsel must
therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern
District of California for $100 no later than seven days from the
date of the Order.

E. Order

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  If the Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint,
he will file a Second Amended Complaint within 20 of the Order.
The Defendant's responsive pleading is due 20 days thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yrjus3ap from Leagle.com.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Supra Repairs
-----------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Toyota class action lawsuit
alleges trying to get a Supra repaired in Maryland is miserable
because of the time waiting for repairs.

That's allegedly because when Toyota brought back the Supra in
2019, the chassis, transmissions and engines have been made by
BMW.

Toyota manufactured the Supra from 1978 to when manufacturing of
the car ceased in 2002, then Toyota reintroduced the Supra in 2019
and several recalls have been issued since then.

However, typically those recalls are announced by BMW due to the
components used in the Toyota Supra.

The Toyota class action lawsuit includes Maryland Supra customers
and was filed by Maryland plaintiff Mitchell Bazzano who alleges he
lost the use of his Supra for more than six months.

"Plaintiff brought, or inquired about bringing, his Supra to the
dealership for servicing and/or repairs, he was told of and/or
experienced delays of over six months to return it to him.
Plaintiff had to refrain from the full usage of his vehicle during
the time in which the Supra was not serviced or repaired." —
Toyota Supra class action

The plaintiff says Supra customers cannot depend on reasonable wait
times because the Toyota dealerships that sold or leased the cars
lack the equipment and parts to repair the cars. The class action
also alleges Toyota technicians may not even be generally familiar
with the BMW engines and transmissions.

According to the plaintiff, he knows all cars may have issues due
to the thousands of unique parts which must work together, but he
expects a company which sells cars to repair and service those
vehicles within reasonable time periods.

The Toyota class action lawsuit alleges the excessive delays in
repairs existed before the Coronavirus struck, leaving Supra
customers without their cars for extended amounts of time.

Toyota is allegedly guilty of false and misleading advertising when
the automaker assures lessees and buyers that it will repair
problems within a reasonable amount of time.

The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland: Mitchell Bazzano, v. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. [GN]


TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lorea Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trugreen Inc. The
case is captioned as Adam Lorea vs. Trugreen Inc a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00304557-CU-OE-GDS (Cal., Super.,
Sacramento Cty., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

The Defendants include Does 1 through 100; Trugreen, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Trugreen Limited Partnership a Delaware
limited partnership.

TruGreen provides building maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Kudatsky Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KUDATSKY, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order granting proposed settlement
adequate at this stage:

   1. Class counsel will send the approved class notice via
      email (for class members whose email address are known)
      and via first-class mail (for all) to the class by August
      10, 2021. Both Tyler and Class Counsel shall also post
      such notice to their websites by this date.

   2. Class members' objections to the proposed settlement shall
      be due September 23, 2021.

   3. The parties' replies to the objections shall be due
      October 7, 2021.

   4. The parties shall move for final approval by October 19,
      2021.

   5. The parties' declarations attesting to the provision of
      class service is due Class counsel will send the approved
      class notice via email for class members November 1, 2021.

   6. The final approval fairness hearing shall take place at
      8:00 A.M. on November 4, 2021.

In this class action under the Federal Labor Standards Act and
California wage and hour law, parties seek preliminary approval of
a class and collective action settlement worth $3.15 million, to
benefit a total of 295 individual employees. The suit concerns
overtime and other compensation related to employees' purported
misclassification as exempt from overtime and itemized wage
statement requirements. Because the proposal would award adequate
relief, preliminary approval is granted.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TY0flm at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOES 1-6, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, and MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as United
States Attorney General, Case No. 2:21-cv-03254-RGK-MAR (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certfying
three classes:

   -- Class 1

      "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
      box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
      contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, who
      received the government's constitutionally-inadequate
      notice of seizure of their property but filed an
      administrative forfeiture claim, and seek return of their
      property in judicial forfeiture proceedings using a
      pseudonym and/or through sealed filings or the appointment
      of a special master to administer their claims.

   -- Class 2

      "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
      box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
      contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, and
      who have received no written or published notice of
      seizure, and seek return of their property using a
      pseudonym, and/or through under sealed filings or the
      appointment of a special master to administer their
      claims"

   -- Class 3

      "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe deposit
      box at US Private Vaults, whose box was searched and the
      contents seized by the FBI on or about March 22, 2021, but
      received a constitutionally-inadequate notice, and seek
      return of their property using a pseudonym, and/or through
      sealed filings or the appointment of a special master to
      administer the relief they seek."

The Plaintiffs DOES 1-6, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, request the Court to allow them and the
putative class members to use a pseudonym to file and litigate
their claims in any judicial civil forfeiture action filed by the
government relating to the seized USPV safe deposit boxes. They
move the Court to certify three classes of putative class members
seeking such relief.

Since 2011, US Private Vaults ("USPV") operated a private safe
deposit box facility, and rented between 600 and 1000 boxes to
hundreds of customers who kept non-contraband property, including
U.S. currency, gold and jewelry. The Plaintiffs Does 1-6 maintained
the following boxes, respectively: 1) box numbers 5006 and 4105; 2)
#5006 and #4105, 3) #6710, 4) #4300, 5) #400, and 6) #40. Only the
box holder or their designee can open their box, through encrypted
biometric information and their own key.

In their Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and/or
declaratory relief to allow them to contest U.S. government
forfeiture of their property using a pseudonym to identify
themselves, or, in the alternative, an order allowing them to file
claims and litigate their case under seal, or an order appointing a
special master to administer claims filed in their own names (out
of the purview of the defendant government). The Plaintiffs also
seek return of their property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 41(g).

The Class Action Complaint initially proposed a broad class defined
as follows: "All persons and/or entities who maintained a safe
deposit box at US Private Vaults, located at 9182 West Olympic
Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 during the month of  March
2021." After discovering additional facts, Plaintiffs now request
13 of three more narrowly-defined classes:

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WOlHKq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Honig, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG
          A Professional Law Corporation
          P.O. Box 10327
          Marina del Rey, CA 90295
          Telephone: (310) 699-8051
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2220
          E-mail: erichonig@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Barnett, Esq.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          105 West F Street, 4th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (6l9) 231-1182
          Facsimile: (619) 233-3221
          E-mail: richardmbarnett@gmail.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Chernis, Esq.
          CHERNIS LAW GROUP P.C.
          Santa Monica Water Garden
          2425 Olympic Blvd.
          Suite 4000-W
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 566-4388
          Facsimile: (310) 382-2541
          E-mail: Michael@chernislaw.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Shevin, Esq.
          SHEVIN LAW GROUP
          15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 784-2700
          Facsimile: (818) 784-2411
          E-mail: eric@shevinlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Gabbert, Esq.
          2530 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: 424 272-9575
          Facsimile: 310 829-2148
          E-mail: plgabbert@aol.com

               - and -

          Devin J. Burstein, Esq.
          WARREN & BURSTEIN
          501 West Broadway, Suite 240
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-4433
          E-mail: db@wabulaw.com

UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Haberlein Suit Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANNIE HABERLEIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Case
2:21-cv-11741-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 27, 2021) is an action for
money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other
relief as a result of a requirement by Defendant United Wholesale
that employees who are not eligible for overtime pay work over 40
hours per week without receiving overtime pay compensation, which
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendant told Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees that they would only work a "Firm 40."
Defendant told Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
that they should be able to perform their jobs effectively without
working outside of normal business hours. In fact, however,
Defendant instituted policies and practices to prevent Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees from being compensated for
working over 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were employed as
non-exempt Account Executives for Defendant, a publicly held
for-profit company in Michigan operating as a wholesale lender that
works exclusively with independent mortgage brokers across the
country to provide home mortgages to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
          NACHTLAW, P.C.
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 555
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Tel: (734) 663-7550


UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Retirement Plan Members File ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin P. Moler, John T. Czahor, and Kathleen D'Ascenzo,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the University of Maryland
Medical System 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan and UMMS Voluntary
403(b) Plan, Plaintiffs, v. University of Maryland Medical System
and Employee Benefits Committee, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01824
(D. Md., July 22, 2021), seeks appropriate monetary, equitable and
other relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (UMMS) is a
university-based regional health care system focused on serving the
health care needs of Maryland. It includes 14 hospitals, two
freestanding emergency centers and nearly 140 outpatient and urgent
care centers. UMMS has been the sponsor, administrator and a
fiduciary for several investment options offered to its employees.
Plaintiffs are former employees of UMMS.

Participants of the plan allege that Defendants failed to prudently
review the plans' investment portfolio with due care to ensure that
each investment option was prudent in terms of performance and
cost, failed to prudently select investment share classes for many
of its funds, imprudently selected and retained funds in the plan
despite the availability of similar investment options with lower
fees and/or better performance histories, imprudently included and
recommended the abusive asset allocation service furnished by
Prudential Insurance Company, and imprudently failed to ensure that
the plan's recordkeeping and total expenses were reasonable and not
excessive. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Gold, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: agold@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Telephone: (215) 867-2399
      Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
      Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
             medelson@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Michael C. McKay, Esq.
      MCKAY LAW, LLC
      5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117
      Scottsdale, AZ 85250
      Telephone: (480) 681-7000
      Facsimile: (480) 348-3999
      Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us


UPS STORE: McLaren Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARABARA McLAREN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE UPS STORE, INC., TURQUOISE
TERRAPIN LLC formerly d/b/a UPS Store #4122, RK & SP SERVICES,
INC., formerly d/b/a UPS Store #4122, and HAMILTON PACK N SHIP LLC,
d/b/a UPS Store #4122, Case No. MER-L-000919-20, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 30,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-14424 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and
equitable and injunctive relief by charging excessive notarization
fees.

The UPS Store, Inc. is a subsidiary of United Parcel Service which
provides shipping, shredding, printing, fax, passport photos,
personal and business mailboxes, and notary services, headquartered
in San Diego, California.

Turquoise Terrapin LLC, formerly doing business as UPS Store #4122,
is a mailbox rental services provider, headquartered in New
Jersey.

RK & SP Services, Inc., formerly doing business as UPS Store #4122,
is a mailbox rental services provider, headquartered in New
Jersey.

Hamilton Pack N Ship LLC, doing business as UPS Store #4122, is a
provider of shipping and mailbox services based in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         David J. Fioccola, Esq.
         Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         250 West 55th Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 468-8000
         Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
         E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com
                 adamhunt@mofo.com

               - and –

         Mark R. McDonald, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         707 Wilshire Boulevard
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
         Telephone: (213) 892-5200
         E-mail: mmcdonald@mofo.com

US FERTILITY: Leonard Suit Transferred from E.D.N.Y. to Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Leonard v. US Fertility, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00835, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on July 19, 2021.

The District of Maryland Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:21-cv-01783-PJM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from personal property-related violation and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte.

USF provides IT platforms and services to several infertility
clinics.[BN]

VERTAFORE INC: Demetros Sues Over Use of Motor Vehicle Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA DEMETROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTAFORE INC., Defendant, Case
No. 9:21-cv-81323 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's collection, usage, and
re-disclosure of motor vehicle records obtained from the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles without obtaining
prior consent of the drivers, including the Plaintiff. As a result
of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest.

Vertafore Inc. is a software development company, headquartered in
Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
         Amy E. Keller, Esq.
         James Ulwick, Esq.
         Eli J. Hare, Esq.
         DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
         Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 214-7900
         E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 julwick@dicellolevitt.com
                 ehare@dicellolevitt.com

                 - and –

         Joseph Malley, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C.
         1045 North Zang Boulevard
         Dallas, TX 75208
         Telephone: (214) 943-6100
         E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com

VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHELLIE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF ALSIP,
Defendant, Case No. 21 C 2124 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

The case is a putative class action in which Plaintiff Lewis, a
resident of the Village of Alsip, Illinois, alleges that Alsip
violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.
On Jan. 31, 2021, Lewis found on her car's windshield a ticket
Alsip issued for violating Section 19-91 of its Code of Ordinances.
Under Section 19-91.1 of the Code, any person convicted of a
violation of Section 19-91 "shall be fined not less than $25 and
not more than $250 for each offense."  

Lewis owns a car that she regularly parks on Alsip's public
streets.  Some time prior to Jan. 30, 2021, Lewis had parked her
car near 12536 South Central Park Avenue.  There were no signs
posted restricting her ability to park there.  She found her ticket
in the snow on her windshield.

On Feb. 17, 2021, an Alsip administrative hearing officer found
Lewis liable for violating Section 19-91 and imposed a $50 fine,
which Lewis paid that day.  At the time of her hearing, there were
dozens of others present who had hearings at the same time for
tickets that were issued to them for violating the same ordinance.


Before the hearings began, the hearing officer spoke to everyone in
attendance and told them that the lack of street signage regarding
secondary-snow-route parking restrictions was not a valid basis to
contest the ticket, and that because the snow-route laws were
posted on Alsip's website, "the burden was on them to know" that no
parking was permitted on the street at the time they received the
tickets.  Because of these remarks, Lewis did not argue when she
appeared before the hearing officer that there had been no signage
and thus a lack of fair notice; instead, she merely protested that
the only place she could park was on the street and that it was
unfair to have been ticketed.

Ms. Lewis alleges that Alsip does not post signs to inform people
about the secondary-snow-route parking restrictions and that the
issuance of tickets for violating Section 19-91 violates the due
process rights of plaintiff and all others who are similarly
situated, because such tickets are issued without "fair and proper
notice" of the parking restrictions.

Ms. Lewis seeks to represent a class of "all persons who, during
the Class Period, have been ticketed and/or fined pursuant to
Section 19-91 and 19-91.1 of the Village's Code of Ordinances."
Lewis seeks (1) a declaration that Alsip's policy of issuing
tickets for violation of Section 19-91 without fair notice violates
the Due Process Clause; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctions
barring Alsip from enforcing the ordinance against the Plaintiff
and others without providing fair notice in accord with the
requirements of due process; (3) nominal and compensatory damages;
and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Alsip moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Discussion

To state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process
violation, a plaintiff must allege (1) deprivation of a protected
property interest and (2) insufficient procedural protections
surrounding that deprivation, citing Tucker v. City of Chi., 907
F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2018).  Alsip does not dispute that the
assessment of a fine is a deprivation of a protected property
interest, but it contends that the Plaintiff has pleaded facts
indicating that she was afforded sufficient procedural protections
surrounding the deprivation, namely, that she received a ticket on
her windshield and a hearing at which she had the opportunity to
present a defense to a hearing officer.

In response, the Plaintiff asserts that she is not challenging the
notice or adequacy of the hearing she was provided and that Alsip
fails to "address her actual claim," which is that she "was wrongly
issued the parking ticket in the first place due to the Village's
systemic failure to provide fair notice to individuals that certain
streets in the Village are 'no parking' zones."  Alsip's motion,
however, does address the Plaintiff's actual claim, which, in her
words, is that Alsip fails to "give reasonable advance notice in
the form of signage to its citizens."  Indeed, Alsip expressly
states in its motion that the Plaintiff's "only contention is that
the lack of street signage" violated her due process rights.  The
problem, says Alsip, is that the alleged lack of signage is not
connected to a deprivation of property.

Judge Guzman agrees.  He opines that the Plaintiff's claim is
premised on her allegedly wrongful receipt of a parking ticket, but
the receipt of a ticket did not constitute a deprivation of
property.  While Alsip cites and discusses Tucker in its motion,
the Plaintiff fails to address that decision, and she sidesteps the
issue of identifying the alleged deprivation of property.

The Plaintiff contends that her claim "arises under what has been
called 'the doctrine of fair notice,'" under which government
entities must "take measures that are reasonably calculated under
all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency
of the action to be taken against them."

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy
of the notice of the hearing on her ticket; rather, she claims that
she was entitled to signs setting out the laws themselves.  The
instant case also does not involve passive conduct, nor can it be
said that the populace is unaware of the existence of parking laws
or snow-route parking restrictions (particularly in the Chicago
area).  

Because the Plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process
claim, the Judge will dismiss the amended complaint.  In light of
the Court's conclusion with respect to Alsip's first argument, the
Judge need not reach Alsip's arguments regarding the doctrines of
abstention and res judicata.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Guzman granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, and dismissed without prejudice the
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff is given until Aug. 13, 2021 to
file a second amended complaint to the extent she is able to do so
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/p9ekyz93 from
Leagle.com.


WARDROBE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Tatum-Rios Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNETTE TATUM-RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. WARDROBE LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06474-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, www.wardrobe.nyc, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York
City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant
to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a retailer of clothing for men and women. Without
any brick-and-mortar stores, the Website is Defendant’s exclusive
point of sale. Through the Website, customers can purchase items
including dresses, tops, skirts, jackets, pants, swimsuits, and
similar items. These items can be delivered anywhere in the United
States.

The Defendant's website is heavily integrated with its retail
operations, serving as a gateway to them. Through the Website,
Defendant’s customers are able to learn about Defendant's
products; including size and color options, fit, materials used and
care instructions, learn about the shipping and return policies,
and get contact information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com

WESTERN EXPRESS: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Elmy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William
L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as Rule 23(b)(3)
Class Actions.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify.  The
Defendants filed a response in opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a
reply, and the Defendants filed a Sur-Reply.  The Plaintiffs also
filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Report in Support of
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  The Defendants filed a response in opposition, and
the Plaintiffs filed a reply.

I. Motion to Strike

The Plaintiffs move to strike the expert report of Robert Crandall
in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on the grounds that the Defendants failed
to disclose Mr. Crandall as a witness or his report in violation of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and that Mr. Crandall's report
does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Judge Campbell notes that neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth
Circuit have decided whether a district court must undertake a
Daubert analysis at the class-certification stage when an expert's
report is critical to the class certification analysis -- Hicks v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 965 F.3d 452, 465-66 (6th Cir. 2020)
(citing Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 39-40 (2013) and In re
Carpenter Co., No. 14-0302, 2014 WL 12809636, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept.
29, 2014)).  In the case, Judge Campbell does not find Mr.
Crandall's report critical to its class certification analysis.  As
such, Judge Campbell declines to consider the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike before ruling on the pending motion for class
certification.

II. Motion to Certify

To certify a class, the Court must be satisfied that the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least
one of Rule 23(b)'s provisions are met.  The party seeking class
certification bears the burden of showing that the requirements for
class certification are met.  In the present case, the Plaintiffs
rely on Rule 23(b)(3), which allows for certification of a Rule
23(a)-compliant class.

A. Rule 23(a)

To be certified, a class must satisfy the prerequisites set forth
in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: that "(1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."

1. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable.  Generally, the number of members
of the proposed class, if more than several hundred, easily
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1)."  The Defendants do
not appear to contest the Plaintiffs' position on numerosity.
Given that the class is estimated to exceed 4,000 members, Judge
Campbell holds that joinder is impracticable and the requirements
of Rule 23(a)(1) are met.

2. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be "questions of law or fact
common to the class."  The Plaintiffs must show that the class
members' claims depend upon a common contention of such a nature
that it is capable of class-wide resolution.  Judge Campbell
concludes the Plaintiffs have met the commonality prerequisite of
Rule 23(a)(2).

3. Typicality

Typicality is met if the class members' claims are fairly
encompassed by the named plaintiffs' claims."  The Plaintiffs
assert that the claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the
proposed class because they arise from the same factual
circumstances.  The Defendants argue that the Named Plaintiffs'
claims are not typical of the purported class members because of
factual differences; namely that some drivers were paid on a
percentage of gross revenue basis whereas the Named Plaintiffs were
paid on a per-mile basis and some drivers did not see Defendants'
ads.

While there may be factual discrepancies, the Defendants do not
challenge that the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class members
raise the same claims arising out of their work under substantially
identical leases and contract hauling agreements.  Judge Campbell
concludes the Plaintiffs have met the typicality prerequisite of
Rule 23(a)(3).

4. Adequacy of Representation

The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the
"representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."  The Plaintiffs assert that the interests
of the Named Plaintiffs are not in conflict with the other unnamed
class members, and that the Named Plaintiffs possess the same
interests and suffer the same injuries as the unnamed class
members.  The Defendants assert that the Named Plaintiffs are not
adequate representatives because they are not typical members of
the putative class.

Judge Campbell holds that the Defendants are correct that
"typicality merges somewhat with the first part of the test for
adequate representation because in the absence of typical claims,
the class representative has no incentives to pursue the claims of
the other class members."  However, having already found that the
typicality prong is satisfied in the present case, the Judge is not
persuaded by the Defendants' argument and concludes the Plaintiffs
have met the adequacy prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(4).

B. Rule 23(b)

Rule 23(b)(3) classes must meet predominance and superiority
requirements, that is, questions of law or fact common to class
members must predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and class treatment must be superior to other
available methods.  Moreover, although not explicitly stated in
Rule 23 the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that
it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether
a particular individual is a member of the proposed class.

1. Predominance

To meet the predominance requirement, a plaintiff must establish
that issues subject to generalized proof and applicable to the
class as a whole predominate over those issues that are subject to
only individualized proof.  Plaintiffs seeking class certification
based on predominance do not need to prove that each element of a
claim can be established by class-wide proof, rather they need to
prove that common questions predominate over questions affecting
only individual class members.

a. Count Two: Fraud About the Owner Operator Program

The Plaintiffs' fraud claim is based on the Defendants' allegedly
fraudulent inducement of drivers to enter into the Owner Operator
program.  They argue that common questions predominate with respect
to this claim because (1) whether the Defendants' statements were
false, (2) with knowledge of the statement's falsity or utter
disregard for its truth, (3) with the intent of inducing reliance
on the statement, and (4) the statement was reasonably relied upon
are all issues that can be proved through common class-wide proof.

In their response, the Defendants assert that the issues of (1)
which ads were viewed/what representation were made and when and
(2) whether a driver acted reasonably in relying on the ads are
subject to individualized proof because the ads had substantively
different content and whether reliance was reasonable requires
consideration of each driver's specific circumstances and
experience in the industry.

Judge Campbell finds that common issues predominate for the
Plaintiffs' fraud claim.  The nature of misrepresentations the
Defendants allegedly made to the class members in the present case
are fundamentally the same -- that the Defendants' lease purchase
program offered income and mileage opportunities with an average of
2400-2700 miles per week or $1.45-$1.85 cents per mile, and the
Plaintiffs have presented evidence that members of the class
received materially uniform misrepresentations from the
Defendants.

b. Count Three: Misrepresentation About the Owner Operator Program

The Plaintiffs assert that their negligent misrepresentation claim
is certifiable for the same reasons and to the same extent as the
fraud claim because whether the Defendants acted intentionally or
negligently turns on the evidence of their knowledge and can be
established on a class-wide basis without testimony from the
individual class members.  The Defendants assert that class
certification on the Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim
should be denied for the reasons they contend class certification
on their fraud claim fails.  For the same reasons he found common
issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' fraud claim, Judge Campbell
finds that common issues predominate for the Plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim.

c. Count Four: Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability

The Plaintiffs assert that the question of procedural
unconscionability is common to the class and appropriately decided
on a class-wide basis because the circumstances at the time the
parties executed the Contract and Lease are the same for the class.
The Plaintiffs argue that substantive unconscionability is common
to the class and appropriately decided on a class-wide basis
because the terms of the Agreement are the same for the class.  In
their response, the Defendants assert that individualized inquiries
will predominate over common questions for the Plaintiffs'
procedural unconscionability claim because some drivers felt like
they had "ample time" to look at the Agreement before they signed.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs
have met their burden of showing that common questions predominate
for their unconscionability claims.

d. Count Five: Unjust Enrichment due to Employee Misclassification

The Plaintiffs assert a claim for unjust enrichment if the Court
finds the Agreement is unconscionable and, therefore,
unenforceable.  In their response, the Defendants assert the issues
of whether the drivers were misclassified and whether plaintiffs
conferred a benefit on Defendants that would be inequitable for
them to retain would need to be analyzed on an individualized
basis.  The Judge holds that common issues predominate for the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

e. Count Six: Federal Forced Labor

The Plaintiffs assert that if the jury finds that the threat of
harm contained in their Agreements was sufficiently coercive to
force workers to work for the Defendants, that finding would apply
on a class-wide basis as class members signed substantially similar
Contracts and Leases.  In their response, the Defendants contend
that "whether a reasonable person would feel coerced to continue
based on the terms of the agreements, is undoubtedly an
individualized inquiry, which would again be required to determine
whether any Driver continued working against their will because
they felt threatened with serious financial harm.

Judge Campbell holds that the question of whether a threat of harm
is sufficiently coercive is evaluated according to an objective
"reasonable person" standard.  As a result, contrary to the
Defendants' position, there will be no need for individual
inquiries to determine whether the threat of harm contained in
Plaintiffs' Agreements was sufficiently coercive to force workers
to work for the Defendants.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs
have met the predominance requirement for their forced labor claim.


f. Count Seven: Truth in Leasing Act Violations

The Plaintiffs assert that the issue of whether the Lease and
Contract violate the Truth in Leasing Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 14704
("TILA"), is subject to generalized proof and applicable to the
class as a whole because the Defendants entered into substantively
identical Contracts and Leases with all the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argue that the fact finder can look at
one Contract and Lease and decide for the entire class whether the
Contract and Lease violated the TILA.

In their response, relying exclusively on out of circuit authority,
the Defendants argue that certification of the Plaintiffs' TILA
claim is not proper due to differences in individualized damages.
However, "individual damages calculations do not preclude class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3)" in the Sixth Circuit.
Accordingly, Judge Campbell holds that common issues predominate
for the Plaintiffs' TILA claim.

g. Count Eight: Breach of Contract with Respect to Compensation
Schedule

The Plaintiffs assert that common questions predominate with
respect to this claim because all class members signed
substantially the same Contract Hauling Agreement with the same
compensation terms and were all compensated by Defendants in the
same way.  The Defendants argue that the issue of breach will be
subject to only individualized proof because not all drivers had
the same versions of the contract or were paid under the same
compensation structure.  In their reply, the Plaintiffs reiterate
that to determine whether the contract was breached and how much a
driver is due for that breach is simply a matter of determining the
number of miles driven each week as reported on driver's weekly
settlement sheets and recalculating the amount that should have
been paid for those miles under the wage term in the Contract.
Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs have met the predominance
requirement for their breach of contract claim.

2. Superiority

To satisfy the superiority requirement, the Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that "a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."  
In undertaking this analysis, the Court examines four factors: (A)
The class members' interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability
of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular
forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Judge Campbell finds that these factors weigh in favor of class
certification.  First, the relatively small amount of individual
damages and the similarity of claims give class members little
interest in individually controlling separate actions.  Second,
concentration of these claims in the Court is desirable, as it will
streamline the resolution of the claims and conserve judicial and
litigation resources.  Finally, the Court is aware of no particular
difficulties associated with the management of the class action,
especially given the current stage of the litigation.  Thus, for
purposes of Rule 23(b)(3), a class action is superior to other
methods of adjudication in the instant case.

3. Class Definition and Ascertainability of the Class

Under the ascertainability requirement, the Plaintiffs must show
"that the members of the class are capable of specific enumeration.
This requirement is satisfied with a class description that is
sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for a
court to determine whether a particular individual is a member by
reference to objective criteria.

In the present action, the Plaintiffs seeks to certify a class with
the following description: "All truck drivers who leased a truck
from New Horizons Leasing, Inc. to drive for Western Express, Inc.
who executed a Contract Hauling Agreement at any time during the
period from the inception of the Owner Operator Program in 2014 up
through the date of final judgment herein."

Judge Campbell agrees with the Plaintiffs that the class definition
is both definite and relies upon objective criteria to determine
membership.  Specifically, membership in the class is determinable
through records maintained by Defendants.  The Judge notes that the
Defendants do not raise any objection relating to the
ascertainability requirement.  As such, he finds that the
definition the class is sufficiently definite.  With that, the
Plaintiffs have carried their burden in establishing that their
proposed class should be certified under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/672r4wh4 from Leagle.com.


ZYNERBA PHARMA: Whiteley Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT WHITELEY and HARRY
BERGER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ARMANDO ANIDO, and
JAMES E. FICKENSCHER, Case No. 2:19-cv-04959-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the
Lead Plaintiffs Scott Whiteley and Harry Berger ask the Court to
enter an order:

   a. finally approving the settlement between Lead Plaintiffs
      and Defendants Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Armando
      Anido, and James E. Fickenscher; and

   b. determining that Class treatment is appropriate.

Zynerba is a specialty pharmaceutical company. The Company develops
next-generation synthetic cannabinoid therapeutics for transdermal
delivery for patients with significant unmet medical needs. Zynerba
Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector and patients in the
United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3joylaT at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Proposed Settlement Class,
are:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Jing Chen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
                  jchen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  taweinrib@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 229-8811
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


                            *********

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 ***