/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210810.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 153

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Weber Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Green Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Miller Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Nowakowski Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products

44 AVENUE: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
A.C. VROMAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Downing Alleges
A.H.P. SETTLEMENT: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Porter Complaint
ACE CARPET: Henriquez Seeks Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline

ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Raziano Class Suit
AMAZON.COM: Faces Seberson Class Suit Over Prime Membership Program
ANNIE'S PUBLISHING: Devroy Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
AREA WIDE: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Flaggers, Crew Chiefs
AT&T INC: Deceives Customers to Avail Reward Cards, Palumbo Claims

ATHIRA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
BATH & BODY: Exposes Buyers to Credit/Debit Card Fraud, Smidga Says
BAXTER INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 10
BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal Filed from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
BEAR VALLEY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rampley Suit Alleges

BEKAERT CORPORATION: Walker Seeks Machine Operators' Unpaid Wages
BHARAT BIOTECH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid to Strike Experts in Saavedra-Vargas Suit
BUILDSMART LLC: Carpenters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
BURGER ASSOCIATES: Faces Robinson Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.

BURNS & MCDONNELL: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CANADA: Settles Frist Nations Drinking Water Lawsuit for $8BB
CHIAWANA INC: Ayala Files Suit in Washington Superior Court
COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Certify Order for Immediate Appeal Nixed
COLLECTCO INC: Nevada Court Grants in Part Doe's Bid to Reopen Case

CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Young v. DOC
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Melucci Class Suit Pending
DFINITY FOUNDATION: Investors File Class Action Suit in California
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Kucharski Suit Over 30% Drop of Stock Price
DIGITAL MEDIA: Faces Handelsman Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls

DR. MIDAS MEDICAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Park Suit Affirmed
EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Class Claims
EB GOLF: Gallagher Sues Over Disclosure of Private Reading Info
ENDEAVOR AIR: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Levy FLSA Suit Alleges
FACEBOOK INC: Klein Moynihan Attorney Discusses TCPA Ruling

FARM JOURNAL: Hall Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
FELDMAR WATCH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Downing Alleges
FIREBIRDS OF DANIA: Violates Rehabilitation Act, Lucius Alleges
FLUENT INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Pepper Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Defective Sunroof Class Action

FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL: VanOcker Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation
FREDDIE MAC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal on Denial of Class Cert. Bid
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Misclassifies Dancers, Washington Alleges
GALLAGHER BASSETT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Myers Alleges

GCN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Indo Suit Alleges
GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Class Certification of Franchise Fee Suit
GIGACQUISITIONS3 LLC: Lures Stockholders to OK Merger, Delman Says
GROVE BAY: Faces Palmer Suit Over Failure to Pay Servers' OT Wages
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Benhayun Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

HAWAII: PSD Class Action Over COVID-19 Unsafe Practices Pending
HOME POINT: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 20 Deadline
ICON BURGER: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Demaria Suit Claims
INSURANCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ahuja Suit Alleges
J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Must File New Class Cert. Bid by August 27

JAK PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Costs, Yates Says
JAMES RIVER: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JC USA: Faces Sherman Class Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Farwell District Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Township School Claims

JUUL LABS: Faces Allen Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads to Youth
JUUL LABS: Faces Sunset School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Green School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Lauderdale School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Miss.
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Enid School District Says

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Wood County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Ohio
KALMBACH MEDIA: Owen Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
KCI USA: Seeks Denial of Palmer Class Certification Bid
KFORCE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims

LABORATORY CORP: Anderson Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Filing Date
MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Underpays Dispatchers & Schedulers, Keator Says
MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Woolwine Sues Over Opioid Addiction
MRS BPO: Zamora FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NARS COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois

NATION COMPANY: Meahl Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Leone Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
NAVY FEDERAL: $171.5K Cy Pres Award to Society in Lloyd Suit OK'd
NCAA: Weldon Seeks Damages for Football-Related Health Issues
NEW YORK, NY: Discusses Incarceration Class Action Settlement

NIANTIC INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Video Game In-App Purchases
NORTHSTART PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Seo Claims
NURTURE INC: Philippe Files Suit in S.D. New York
NYU LANGONE: Faces Dorson Suit Over X-ray Technicians' Unpaid Wages
OATLY GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 24 Deadline

ONDAS HOLDINGS: Wilhelm Sues Over American Robotics Acquisition
ONEPLUS USA: Smartphones Contain Secret Setting, Wade Suit Alleges
PG&E CORP: Dismissal of PSPS Suit Under Appeal
PG&E CORP: PERA Objection to Stay York County Suit Pending
PG&E CORP: Vataj Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 16

PGA MAGAZINE: Green Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Skeels Files Suit Over Share Price Drop

PLATT ELECTRIC: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PLUS COMMUNICATIONS: Hester Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
POSTAL FLEET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pair Suit Alleges
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Stone Sues Over Unclear Insurance Plan Notice
QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending

QUALCOMM INC: Class Certification of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Underway in Canada
QUALCOMM INC: Dismissal of Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Appealed
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
ROCKET COMPANIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline

SAGINAW, MI: App. Court Hears Arguments in Parking Tickets Suit
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Mosaic Health Alleges Drug Discount Monopoly
SIERRA NEVADA: Fischler Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
SIX FLAGS: Court Junks Class Suit vs SFNE
SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Weaver USERRA Suit Over Military Leaves
SPICY TOWN: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Lucius Says
STABLE ROAD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 13 Deadline
STANDARD EAST: Rotolo Seeks Tipped Workers' Unpaid Wages
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Attorney Says Special Judge's Ruling Flawed

TEVA PHARMA: Appeal on Class Cert. of Ontario Teachers' Suit Nixed
TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
TOO FACED: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANS UNION LLC: Simons Sues Over Misleading FICO Credit Score

TRANSUNION LLC: Michael Best Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
TREADMAXX TIRE: Powell Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
UBIQUITI INC: Faces Breach Class Action in New York
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Faces Fusilier Contract Suit in S.D. New York
VENTURA COUNTY: Faces White Suit in Central District of California

VISA INC: Musgrave Joins Legal Action Over Alleged Interchange Fees
WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Employees Enter Into Wage Class Action
WELLCARE HEALTH: Fiorarancio Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
WELLS FARGO: $45MM Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
WELLS FARGO: Consent Order Disclosure Related Suit Underway

WELLS FARGO: Dismissal of Posting Related Suit Upheld
WELLS FARGO: Interchange Litigation Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Reached in NCUA Initiated Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Trainees' Wage Lawsuit
WOLFORD AMERICA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Redick Alleges

WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Morrell Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Preston Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
Z & L WRECKING: Underpays Laborers and Operators, Moore Claims
ZOOM VIDEO: October 21 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

ZOOM VIDEO: Settles Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $85 Million
ZYMERGEN INC: Shankar Sues Over 76% Decline of Stock Price

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Weber Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED OTTO WEBER, 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-02421-RMG
(D.S.C., August 3, 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 personal injury 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 prostate cancer, the suit alleges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Green Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
BEATRICE GREEN, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of CURTIS EUGENE GREEN, deceased, 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-02427-RMG (D.S.C., August 3, 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 personal injury and death of the Decedent 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 Decedent, 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 Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Decedent's diagnosis caused
and/or contributed to his death, the suit alleges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Foster Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MALCOM JAY FOSTER, 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-02423-RMG
(D.S.C., August 3, 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 firefighter trainees, 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
contends.

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:                

         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: Miller Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN JAMES MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02426-RMG
(D.S.C., August 3, 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 personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

3M COMPANY: Nowakowski Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NOWAKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02417-RMG (D.S.C., August 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

44 AVENUE: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL RIVAS MARTINEZ,, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. 44 AVENUE POULTRY CORP. d/b/a HAKIM HALAL
LIVE POULTRY and ABDUL HAKIM MAZUMDER, Jointly and Severally, Case
No. (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay owed to her pursuant to both the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a butcher and general
employee for Defendants' meat business in Queens, New York.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not paid the minimum wage for all
hours worked and was not paid overtime premiums for hours worked
over 40 in a given workweek.

The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees of Defendants and his NYLL
claims on behalf of himself and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 class of all non-management employees working for Defendants
during the relevant NYLL limitations period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          www.PeltonGraham.com
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

A.C. VROMAN: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Downing Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN DOWNING, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. A.C. VROMAN, INC., a California Corporation;
VROMAN’S ATRIUM, INC., a California Corporation; VROMAN’S
PLAZA, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-05919-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) alleges
that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.vromansbookstore.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Defendant offers the https://www.vromansbookstore.com/ website
to the public. The website offers features which should allow all
consumers to accessthe goods and services which Defendant offers in
connection with its physical locations. The goods and services
offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to, the
following, which allow consumers to access: books in genres such as
Biography, Non-Fiction, Fiction, Historical Fiction, Literary
Fiction, Romance, Science Fiction, Classic Fiction, Comics &
Graphic Novels, Cooking, Self-Help, True Crime, and Children's &
Young Adult Literature; apparel & accessories such 23 as jewelry,
purses & wallets, scarves & kimonos, socks, and totes; bed & bath
products such as soap, soap trays, candles, tissues, and towels;
book accessories such as book lights, bookmarks, and book ends;
gift bundles; home decor such as vases, mirrors, and candle
holders; home fragrance products such as candles, diffusers &
sprays, and incense; Kitchen products such as bowls, mugs, dishes,
sponges, tea infusers, and dish towels; pens & stationary such as
fountain pens, ink, greeting cards, invitations, fine stationary,
journals, and wedding invitations; and puzzles & games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

A.H.P. SETTLEMENT: Third Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Porter Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH ELLIOTT PORTER, Appellant v. A.H.P. SETTLEMENT
TRUST, Case No. 21-1567 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order dismissing
Porter's complaint.

The District Court's Feb. 23, 2021 memorandum recounts the
background of Porter's litigation against AHP Settlement Trust,
which was established under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action
Settlement Agreement to compensate class members who suffered
valvular heart disease from using certain diet drugs.

In 2015, class member Miguel A. Larrieu submitted his claim for
Matrix A-1 benefits, with supporting medical documentation.  The
Trust reviewed his claim and classified him as eligible for reduced
compensation under Matrix B-1. Larrieu contested the determination,
but ultimately, on June 8, 2018, the District Court entered a
memorandum and order holding that Larrieu was entitled to
compensation under Matrix B-1.  Larrieu did not appeal.  Meanwhile,
Porter pursued a supplemental claim determination on Larrieu's
behalf, but that claim was discontinued by the parties'
stipulation.

On May 7, 2020, Porter filed the complaint in the District of South
Carolina, referencing Larrieu's claims registered with the Trust
"that have already been processed and thus adjudicated."  Although
not an attorney, Porter asserted that he pursued Larrieu's claim
under a power of attorney agreement, that the agreement specified a
percentage that Porter would receive from Larrieu's claim
settlement, and that Larrieu's claim had been calculated
incorrectly under Matrix B instead of Matrix A. Porter sought
damages, noting a power of attorney amount and a Matrix A claim
amount.  The District Court for the District of South Carolina
transferred the complaint to the District Court, noting that Porter
earlier had filed a nearly identical complaint, also transferred,
which had been dismissed for failure to effect proper service under
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Porter similarly failed to serve this second complaint as
required under Rule 4(m).  He requested but did not obtain the
Trust's waiver of service.  The District Court ordered Porter to
serve the complaint, warning that failure to do so would result in
dismissal. Porter filed an affidavit indicating that the summons
and complaint were served on Jan. 14, 2021, by hand delivery to a
staff member at the office of the Trust's counsel.  The Trust filed
a motion to dismiss, acknowledging the hand-delivered complaint to
counsel's law firm but asserting that counsel was not authorized to
accept service for the Trust.  Alternatively, the Trust argued that
Porter failed to state a cognizable claim for relief.  The parties
briefed the issues.

The District Court analyzed the Trust's motion to dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6).  The District Court rejected Porter's
suggestion that a Google search showing that the Trust's office was
closed excused proper service under Rule 4(m).  Further noting that
Porter neither disputed that the Trust's counsel was not authorized
to accept service nor attempted to show otherwise, and that Porter
still had not served the complaint after seven months, the District
Court granted the Trust's motion to dismiss for insufficient
process.

Moreover, the District Court determined that, even if service were
deemed to be sufficient, the Trust would be entitled to dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  First, citing
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir.
2009), the District Court found that Porter's attempt to contest
the calculation of Larrieu's claim is barred by res judicata.
Second, the District Court found that, although the Settlement
Agreement allows for contingency fee payments to attorneys for
successful class members, the Settlement Agreement does not provide
for payment of fees to non-attorneys, such as Porter, for helping a
class member submit a claim.  Accordingly, the District Court
entered an order dismissing the complaint.

The appeal followed, and the Third Circuit exercises appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.  The parties have
submitted arguments to support their positions on appeal.

Porter argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his case
for insufficient service, noting that the proper service on the
Trust is evidenced by the Trust's counsel's ability to file
documents in response to the complaint.  In addition, pointing to
the District Court's order language specifying that it granted the
Trust's motion to dismiss "for insufficient service of process
under Rule 12(b)(5)," Porter contends that the service issue is the
sole basis for the District Court's dismissal, and disregards the
District Court's reliance on the "reasons set forth in the
foregoing Memorandum" in its dismissal order.  Indeed, Porter
argues that the Third Circuit should reinstate his complaint by
transferring it back to the District of South Carolina.

However, the Third Circuit may affirm the District Court's decision
on any basis supported by the record.  Upon review of the record
and the parties' submissions on appeal, it affirms.  It finds that
Porter does not address the District Court's alternative reasons
supporting dismissal of his complaint, but for substantially
similar reasons given by the District Court, the Third Circuit
agrees that dismissal was appropriate.  As noted, the District
Court considered Porter's claims even assuming proper service of
the complaint, and Porter conceded that Larrieu's claims already
had been adjudicated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  Even if
he is entitled to a portion of Larrieu's claim amount by operation
of his power of attorney agreement, Porter has not shown that the
Trust is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to disburse any
funds to him directly.

Because no substantial question is presented, the Third Circuit
summarily affirms the District Court's order dismissing Porter's
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ysm2dba6 from Leagle.com.


ACE CARPET: Henriquez Seeks Laborers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDO HENRIQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACE CARPET & UPHOLSTERY CARE INC.
and KEVIN KRETCH, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04311 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 2, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant to
recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from in or
about February 2017 until in or about April 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked more than 50
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In
addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the
hours the Plaintiff and other similarly situated laborers have
worked and the wages paid to them. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to post required notices regarding payment of minimum wages and
overtime as required by the FLSA and NYLL, and to provide them with
an accurate wage statement each pay period and with a notice and
acknowledgement of their wage rate upon their hire, the Plaintiff
alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages for himself and all other
similarly situated laborers against the Defendant plus liquidated
damages and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as all
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Ace Carpet & Upholstery Care Inc. provides restoration services.
Kevin Kretch is a shareholder and/or officer of ACE. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare
Acquisitions Corp. ("DFB," "AdaptHealth," or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AHCO) (NASDAQ: AHCOW) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 21-cv-03382,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
AdaptHealth securities between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
AdaptHealth securities during the Class Period, you have until
September 27, 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.

AdaptHealth, together with its subsidiaries, provides home
healthcare equipment, medical supplies, and home and related
services in the U.S.

Prior to its business combination with AdaptHealth, as described
below, DFB was a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), also
known as a blank check company, incorporated for the purpose of
entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share
purchase, recapitalization, reorganization, or similar business
combination with one or more businesses or entities.

On July 8, 2019, DFB announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement for a business combination with AdaptHealth
Holdings, LLC, the third largest distributor of home medical
equipment in the U.S. (the "Merger"). Upon the closing of the
Merger, DFB renamed itself "AdaptHealth Corp." and its Class A
common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select market under
the ticker symbol "AHCO."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented
its organic growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past
organic growth numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation
of SEC regulations; (ii) accordingly, the Company had materially
overstated its financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On July 19, 2021, before the market opened, Jehoshaphat Research
published a report alleging that AdaptHealth is a "roll-up"
company, or a company that is built primarily through the
acquisition of smaller companies with common services or products,
that obscures its organic growth by "[r]etroactively changing past
organic growth numbers to be higher, with no disclosure about the
change." Specifically, the report stated that "[w]hile management
claims (and consensus estimates reflect) an organic growth
trajectory of 8-10%, AHCO is in fact experiencing double-digit
organic decline. It is also, in our opinion, taking steps to
obscure that decline which are expressly forbidden by the SEC."
Indeed, the report suggested that AdaptHealth's manipulation of its
organic growth trajectory was "a blatant violation of non-GAAP
disclosure rules, for which companies get into huge trouble."

On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
5.93%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021.

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

CONTACT:

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

ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Raziano Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered a judgment in the case, MICHAEL
RAZIANO, BRIAN TRAISTER, and CHRIS VALDEZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04373-JAK-AS (C.D. Cal.).

The Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as
represented in the Settlement Agreement that was filed previously
with the Court.  The Court conducted a final approval hearing
pursuant to its previous Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Granting Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, Service Payments, and Administration Expenses.

Based on a review of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Non-Objections by
Government Officials Pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act, Judge
Kronstadt lifted the stay of the Final Approval Order.  He finds
that there is jurisdiction over the parties to the action,
including all the Class Members.

Judgment is entered whereby the Plaintiffs and the Class Members,
except those who excluded themselves from the Settlement, will take
from the Defendant only as expressly set forth in the Class Action
Settlement, as approved in the Final Approval Order.

The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
action, the Plaintiffs, the Class Members and the Defendant, for
the purposes of: (i) supervising the implementation, enforcement,
construction and interpretation of the Settlement, the Preliminary
Approval Order, the plan of allocation, the Final Approval Order
and this Judgment; and (ii) supervising distribution of amounts
paid under the Settlement.

The action is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its
own costs and attorney's fees, except as otherwise provided by the
Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/cyvuer34 from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM: Faces Seberson Class Suit Over Prime Membership Program
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SEBERSON v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01009 (W.D.
Wash., July 28, 2021) Complaint against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.
("Amazon" or "Defendant") is a class action complaint about a
betrayal of trust.

Since its inception in 1994 as an online bookseller operating out
of founder Jeff Bezos's garage, Amazon -- today a tech behemoth
worth $1.77 trillion 1 -- has cultivated a relationship with
consumers that has garnered the company "astounding" customer
loyalty. Ultimately, however, Amazon's nominal mission of
"striv[ing] to offer customers the lowest possible prices, the best
available selection, and the utmost convenience" came into direct
conflict with Amazon's ambition to dominate every sector of the
economy. Faced with a choice between doing right by its customers
or gaining market power in one of the many industries it seeks to
control, Amazon made the wrong choice, jettisoning its promise of
the "lowest possible prices" and violating the antitrust laws in a
way that has injured -- and continues to injure -- hundreds of
millions of its loyal customers, says the suit.

To understand how and why Amazon broke the antitrust laws and
betrayed the trust of its customers, one must begin with Amazon
Prime, the company's first ever membership program, unveiled in
February 2005. At the program's inception, an annual membership fee
of $79 provided Prime members with unlimited two-day shipping at no
extra cost and one-day shipping for $3.99 per item, the Plaintiff
contends.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos touted Prime as "all-you-can-eat express
shipping." At the time, Amazon's annual revenues were $8.49 billion
-- only 2.2% of what they are today. Bezos assured investors that,
"[t]hough expensive for the Company in the short-term," Prime would
pay off in the long-run because "it's a significant benefit and
more convenient for customers. With Amazon Prime, there's no
minimum purchase to think about, and no consolidating orders --
two-day shipping becomes an everyday experience rather than an
occasional indulgence."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Evan Rosin, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          Email: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                 klandau@tcllaw.com
                 erosin@tcllaw.com

ANNIE'S PUBLISHING: Devroy Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Annie's Publishing,
LLC. The case is styled as Arlene Devroy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Annie's Publishing, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11815-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Annie's -- https://www.annies-publishing.com/ -- is a craft and
nostalgia publishing division of DRG.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


AREA WIDE: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Flaggers, Crew Chiefs
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARL NELSON and KHARI PORTER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE,
INC.; and W.E.K. ENTERPRISES, LLC, formerly known as ROADTEK
TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00895 (E.D.
Va., August 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum
Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act including failure to
pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages at the
required rate, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

Mr. Nelson was employed by Defendants as a flagger, and currently
works as a crew chief after his promotion in September 2020.

Mr. Porter has been employed by the Defendants as a flagger from
September 2020 to the present.

Area Wide Protective, Inc. is a traffic management services
provider, headquartered in Ohio.

W.E.K. Enterprises, LLC, formerly known as RoadTek Traffic
Solutions LLC, is a company that provides traffic management
services, headquartered in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                          
         Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
         ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
         8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
         Silver Spring, MD 20910
         Telephone: (301) 587-9373
         Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
         E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

                  - and –

         Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
         Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
         THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
         4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
         Arlington, VA 22206
         Telephone: (202) 449-8527
         Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
         E-mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
                 rtucci@spigglelaw.com

AT&T INC: Deceives Customers to Avail Reward Cards, Palumbo Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PALUMBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., ABC Corps 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01818-N (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, declaratory relief, and violation of Florida's Unfair &
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, AT&T is engaged in deceptive and
misleading advertising of the benefits and limitations of its
reward cards. AT&T offers to prospective new customers a
promotional reward card if they agree to contract with AT&T to
purchase bundled AT&T telecommunications services. However, rather
than sending the card to new customers immediately after they
contract and pay for their new AT&T services, AT&T either never
sends the reward card or delays sending it such that new customer
recipients don't receive it until near or after the card's short
150-day expiry period. AT&T then has a policy of refusing to honor
or replace expired reward cards, says the suit.

AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunications company, headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
           
         William B. Federman, Esq.
         John Charles Sherwood, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         212 W. Spring Valley Road
         Richardson, TX 75081
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
         E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                 jcs@federmanlaw.com

                - and –

         James M. Evangelista, Esq.
         David J. Worley, Esq.
         Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
         Hannah Drosky, Esq.
         EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
         500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
         Atlanta, GA 30350
         Telephone: (404) 205-8400
         Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
         E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
                 david@ewlawllc.com
                 kristi@ewlawllc.com
                 leslie@ewlawllc.com

ATHIRA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug. 1 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHA)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/athira-pharma-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18139&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021
and/or purchased common stock in or traceable to the Company's
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
September 2020 initial public offering priced at $17.00 per share.

Allegations against ATHA include that: (1) the research conducted
by Defendant Kawas, which formed the foundation for Athira's
product candidates and intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas'
scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data
through the altering of Western blot images; and (2) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made not misleading.

Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE:RKT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18139&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
Class Period: February 25, 2021 - May 5, 2021

Allegations against RKT include that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war
and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's
Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends
identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain
on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points
in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the
favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and
allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins
had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to
levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide
gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical
averages; and (f) 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.

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YMM)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=18139&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Full Truck's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Full Truck's June 2021 initial public offering.

Allegations against YMM include that: (1) Full Truck's apps
Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the Chinese government; (2) the Chinese government would
require Full Truck to suspend new user registration; (3) FTA needed
to conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity
risks"; (4) Full Truck needed to "continue to improve its
cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities"; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

BATH & BODY: Exposes Buyers to Credit/Debit Card Fraud, Smidga Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MALINDA S. SMIDGA and ASHLEY POPA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BATH & BODY WORKS, INC.
f/k/a L BRANDS, INC., Defendant, (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty.,
August 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has willfully violated
FACTA and failed to protect the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated against identity theft and credit card and debit card
fraud by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number on
paper receipts provided at the point of sale to credit card and
debit card cardholders transacting business with the Defendant.

Bath & Body Works, Inc., formerly known as L Brands, Inc., is a
company that manufactures body care and home fragrances products,
with its principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246

BAXTER INT'L: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a final settlement
approval hearing is set for August 10, 2021, in Ethan E. Silverman
et al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al.

In November 2019, the company and certain of its officers were
named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et
al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of thecompany's
common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative
class action on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired
Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019.


The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material
facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for
the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding
foreign exchange losses, as well as our internal controls over
financial reporting.

On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2020 containing
substantially the same allegations. On August 24, 2020, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On January 12, 2021, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint but gave plaintiffs an opportunity to
file a further amended complaint.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case for $16
million, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery and
final approval by the Court. The Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement on April 20, 2021. A final approval hearing is
currently scheduled for August 10, 2021.

Baxter said, "We are fully reserved for the settlement amount as of
June 30, 2021."

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East, and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal Filed from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in the
putative antitrust class action suit related to IV solutions sales
have not taken an appeal from the district court's decision
dismissing the case.

In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions.

Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the company moved
to dismiss on November 9, 2018.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020. The plaintiffs did not
file an appeal.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BEAR VALLEY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Rampley Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KYANA RAMPLEY, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, v. BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01270 (C.D.
Cal., July 29, 2021) is a collective action against the Defendants
for its failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the FLSA Collective
Class, which consists of all non-exempt employees of Defendants,
who were not fully compensated for all work performed by the
Defendants, in the three-year period preceding the filing of this
complaint, through entry of judgment.

The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Class regularly worked in
excess of 40 hour per week for Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants failed to include all renumeration (bonuses and
shift differential rate(s)) when calculating their regular rate due
to them for payment of overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to perform duties at Bear
Valley Community Hospital in the city of Big Bear Lake, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  jyoung@mahoney-law.net

BEKAERT CORPORATION: Walker Seeks Machine Operators' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN WALKER, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BEKAERT CORPORATION, Case No. 5:21-cv-01468 (N.D. Ohio,
July 28, 2021), challenges policies and practices of Defendant
Bekaert that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the
statutes of the State of Ohio.

Plaintiff Walker contends that he was employed by the Defendant
from January 2019 to June 2021. He worked for Defendant as an
hourly nonexempt machine operator during the relevant time period.
The Defendant failed to pay him and other members of the FLSA
Collective and the Ohio Class for all time worked while they were
clocked in, including during workweeks when they worked more than
40 hours. He regularly clocked in at least 20-30 minutes early for
his shifts and began to work, but he was regularly not paid for
this time worked, he adds.

Plaintiff Colin Walker is an individual and a resident of Stark
County, Ohio.

Defendant Bekaert is a Delaware for-profit corporation that
operates a "specialty steel wire" facility in Ohio at 510 Collins
Blvd., Orrville, Ohio 44667.

The Defendant is an international steel wire producer and supplier
whose products include metal transformation and coatings, drawn
steel wire products, wire, steelcord, steel fibers, steel wire,
steel cords, metal fibers, steel coatings, and metal coatings.
Bekaert produces steel wire products for cars and trucks,
elevators, mines, tunnels, bridges, home and office, machines, and
offshore applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BHARAT BIOTECH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
HW English reports that after the unceremonious exit from Brazil,
indigenous vaccine maker Bharat Biotech is looking at an uncertain
future in the United States. The US firm with which it had tied up
to launch Covaxin in the foreign country, is now facing a
class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania. [GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid to Strike Experts in Saavedra-Vargas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO SAAVEDRA-VARGAS v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., Civil Action No. 18-11461 (E.D. La.),
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted BP's a motion to strike the
Plaintiff's late-designated experts, and denied BP's second motion
for reimbursement of expert related expenses.

The case arises from Plaintiff Saavedra-Vargas' shoreline clean-up
work near Hopedale, Louisiana, after the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The Plaintiff alleges that during
this response work from approximately May 2010 to November 2010, he
was exposed to particulate matter that caused him to suffer from
chronic bilateral maxillary sinus disease.

Based on the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiff filed the instant
lawsuit against BP pursuant to the Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement ("MSA") reached in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179.  This
allows class members claiming later-manifested physical conditions
("LMPC") diagnosed after April 2012 to sue through the Back-End
Litigation Option ("BELO").

Liability is not an issue in the BELO cases, but the Plaintiff must
prove the diagnosis of a malady and a causal relationship of the
malady to the oil spill.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
for pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, scarring
and disfigurement, other economic loss, loss of enjoyment of life,
and fear of future medical issues.

To prove what toxicant and what level of that toxicant caused the
Plaintiff's injury, Mr. Vargas hired Dr. Patricia Williams and Mr.
Lee Lemond.  In September 2020, he issued expert reports from Dr.
Williams and Mr. Lemond.  According to Dr. Williams, Vargas'
chronic sinus disease was caused by his exposure to unsafe levels
of particulate matter.  In response to these expert reports and the
particulate matter theory of causation, BP produced reports from
five experts in the fields of toxicology, epidemiology,
environmental chemistry, industrial hygiene, and otolaryngology. BP
also deposed both Dr. Williams and Mr. Lemond.  Finally, at the
close of discovery, BP filed a summary judgment motion and a
Daubert motion directed towards Dr. Williams.

Meanwhile in a similar case involving BELO plaintiffs who claimed
to suffer from sinusitis, Judge Rodgers on the Northern District of
Florida excluded Dr. Williams' testimony as unreliable and
unhelpful under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702(c).
Subsequently, the Plaintiff informed the Court of a recent study
that revealed additional oil deposits from the Deepwater Horizon
spill.  He sought to designate one of the study's authors Dr.
Perlin out-of-time so she could conduct a new study to quantify the
level and duration of Plaintiff's toxic exposure to help prove
medial causation.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion, finding good cause to
allow the late expert designation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Produce 16(b)(4) in view of this new scientific development.  Based
on that finding, and guided by the principle of equity, the Court
also awarded BP reimbursement of future "attorneys' fees, any
expert fees, and costs associated with the designation of the
Plaintiff's new expert or new expert report."  After multiple
continuances due to the ongoing effects of COVID-19, the trial has
been moved to October 2021.

On June 9, 2021, the Plaintiff produced Dr. Perlin and Dr.
Paris-Limouzy's expert report.  At the same time, however, he
abandoned Dr. Williams (toxicology) and Mr. Lemond (environmental
science) and added eight additional experts in the areas of
toxicology, engineering, psychology, life care planning, economics,
occupational and environmental medicine, and otolaryngology.  The
Plaintiff also added two new treating physicians, Drs. Ambalu and
Mahlon.  In total, 10 of the 14 proffered experts are new.

I. Present Motions

a. BP's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Late Experts

BP now moves to strike the Plaintiff's late expert designations
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), arguing that they
are inconsistent with the Order's purpose and with his
representations regarding the scheduling order modification.  In
November 2020, when the Plaintiff moved to reopen his expert
deadline, he sought permission to issue a late report from Dr.
Perlin which would use new methodology "to quantify the level and
duration of Plaintiff's PAH exposure."  Yet, BP points out that ten
of these experts do not use or even discuss Dr. Perlin's "new
science" on which he premised his motion to modify the scheduling.
Accordingly, BP requests that the Court strike the late expert
designations because (1) Plaintiff has offered no reasonable
explanation for the delay, (2) the designations are prejudicial,
(3) another continuance would not cure the prejudice, and (4) the
witnesses do not offer important testimony.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion.  He first argues that he
"requested a modification of the Scheduling Order in totality so
that the new science could be incorporated and so that he could
adequately oppose summary judgment."  The Plaintiff next contends
that even if he failed to comply with the spirit and purpose of the
amended Scheduling Order as argued by BP, he did not violate its
plain meaning.  Moreover, should the Court find that the expert
designations were untimely, the Plaintiff maintains that the
failure to disclosure his experts was both substantially justified
and harmless because (1) the "Plaintiff's expert line-up is
critical to establishing the elements of a BELO claim" and (2) BP
merely has to put forth the same experts as offered in the other
pending BELO cases involving the Plaintiff's counsel.

b. BP's Second Motion for Reimbursement of Expert Expenses

Alternatively, BP requests that the Court grant BP reimbursement of
three categories of expenses: (1) costs that BP incurred to depose
Plaintiff's former experts, Dr. Williams and Mr. Lemond (2) costs
that BP incurred in the form of attorneys' fees to prepare and file
a Daubert motion directed against Dr. Williams and a summary
judgment motion based on the then-existing causation evidence and
(3) future costs that BP will incur to defend against Plaintiff's
eleven new experts. These costs would consist of attorneys' fees,
future defense expert fees, and deposition-related expenses.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that an order for
reimbursement of expert costs would be unjust and overly burdensome
because it would lead to the likely dismissal of case due to
unreasonable costs incurred by BP.  He reiterates his argument that
there is an asymmetry of resources between the parties and imposing
such financial requirement on him would be overly burdensome and
onerous compared to BP's "functionally limitless" resources.
Moreover, the Plaintiff argues that BP's past expert related costs
were unnecessary because BP could have moved to exclude Dr.
Williams without taking her deposition.  Lastly, he contends that
he cannot adequately oppose BP's motion at this juncture because BP
fail to provide the necessary detail and specificity as to the
costs and fees, so the Court should defer ruling.

II. Law & Analysis

First and foremost, the parties disagree as to whether the
Plaintiff violated the Scheduling Order's expert report deadline of
June 29, 2021.  While text of the amended Scheduling Order, which
was drafted by the parties and submitted to the Court, does not
explicitly limit the number or type of experts, the justification
provided to the Court for modifying the Scheduling Order does not
support the introduction of the Plaintiff's new expert line-up.

The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to modify the Scheduling Order
on the grounds that a recent study conducted by Dr. Perlin had
revealed additional oil deposits from the Deepwater Horizon spill
and thus constituted good cause under 16(b) to allow him to
designate an expert out-of-time.  The Plaintiff informed the Court
that he retained Dr. Perlin to conduct a new study to quantify the
level and duration of the Plaintiff's toxic exposure, which would
help prove medical causation.  During oral argument, the
Plaintiff's counsel assured the Court that the purpose of the
expert report extension was to introduce "new scientific evidence,"
not to substitute or replace experts.

Then, after obtaining relief, the Plaintiff replaced his
toxicologist, Dr. Williams, with Dr. Clark, who does not use Dr.
Perlin's report or the Invisible Oil paper for any purpose.  In
addition, he added nine other experts in a variety of fields who
likewise do not draw on the alleged "new science" in rendering
their opinions.  The Plaintiff appears to have used this
opportunity to designate a whole new line-up of experts that have
nothing to do with the "new science" that was the basis of the
original motion to modify the Scheduling Order.  This goes against
both the spirit and purpose of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order and
Reasons allowing the modification of the Scheduling Order under
Rule 16(b).  For this reason, Judge Fallon finds that the
Plaintiff's 10 new expert designations were untimely.   In order to
survive a motion to strike, the Plaintiff must therefore
demonstrate that the failure to designate his experts in accordance
with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) was "substantially justified" or is
"harmless" under Rule 37(c).

In making this determination, the Court must consider the four-part
test articulated in Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 275,
380 (5th Cir. 1996).  As for the first factor, Judge Fallon finds
that the Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient explanation for
his failure to designate these witnesses in a timely manner.  The
second factor, the potential prejudice to BP, also weighs against
Plaintiff. Unlike other BELO cases in other Sections, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff had already proffered five experts
witnesses and allowed depositions and motion practice to move
forward before ever moving to modify the Scheduling Order. Although
this prejudice has been somewhat lessened by the award of
prospective fees for Dr. Perlin, prejudice remains regarding the
ten other experts.

Moreover, the third factor supports the exclusion of the experts
because this matter has been continued several times and a further
continuance would only add to the delay and prejudice.  In regard
to the fourth factor, the Plaintiff has not specified how each
expert's anticipated testimony would support his case, though the
Court certainly recognizes the importance of expert testimony
generally in a toxic tort case such as this.

Ultimately, Judge Fallon cannot allow the Plaintiff to essentially
re-do his expert designations allegedly based on "new science" when
the experts he attempts to add do not use or rely on that science.
The mere fact that the Plaintiff no longer believes his experts are
sufficient cannot serve as the basis for allowing late
designations.  Accordingly, such expert testimony was inconsistent
with the premise of the Plaintiff's prior motion for relief and
with the Court's rationale for granting the motion.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon granted BP's motion to
strike as stated.  Accordingly, he strikes the testimony of the
following ten experts: Dr. Gina Solomon, Dr. David Greene, Dr.
Ranajit Sahu, Mr. Michael Klein, Dr. Andrew Rosen, Ms. Christiane
Pittaluga, Dr. James Clark, Dr. Bernard Pettingill, Dr. Miriam
Ambalu, and Dr. Michael Mahlon.  The Judge denied BP's second
motion for reimbursement of extra expert-related expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7hvduwk8 from Leagle.com.


BUILDSMART LLC: Carpenters Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jesus Amaya, Cesar Reyes, Fredy Lopez Mondragon, Carlos Garcia,
Fidencio Diaz, Lucino Galindo Cano, Melvin Vigil Mesia, Edwin
Belecela and Cristian Fuentes individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Buildsmart LLC and
Bernardo Dal Pozzolo and Bernardo Santos Xavier as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06378, (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2021), seeks
to recover damages for violations of New York State labor laws and
the Fair Labor Standards Act, compensatory and liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable
remedies.

Defendants operate a construction company where Plaintiffs were
employed as carpenters. They claim to have worked in excess of 40
hours per day without overtime premium, spread-of-hours premium and
were denied accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


BURGER ASSOCIATES: Faces Robinson Employment Suit in Cal. State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger Associates,
Inc. The case is captioned as Renee Robinson vs. Burger Associates,
Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00304629-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., July 22, 2021).

The Defendants include Burger Associates, Inc., Burger
Rehabilitation Systems, Inc., and Defendant Does 1-100.

The arises from employment-related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave. Ste. 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com

BURNS & MCDONNELL: Wilson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK WILSON, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-SRB (W.D. Mo., July 30, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately
September 2018 until September 2019 as a Right of Way Agent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers as exempt from
overtime compensation. Instead of paying them overtime at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendant paid them a flat
daily rate for each day worked regardless of the total hours worked
in a workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint for himself and all other similarly situated workers to
recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant, as well as
liquidated damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief to
which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company is a "full-service
engineering, architecture, construction, environmental, and
consulting solutions firm." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Tel: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

                - and –

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CANADA: Settles Frist Nations Drinking Water Lawsuit for $8BB
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Profiri, writing for Jurist, reports that the Canadian federal
government reached a nearly $8 billion agreement on July 30 with
First Nation leaders to settle a lawsuit over the lack of access to
clean drinking water in their communities.

Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, and Neskantaga
First Nation launched the class action lawsuit against the attorney
general of Canada for "failing to address prolonged drinking-water
advisories on First Nations reserves across Canada."

The chiefs of the First Nations, alongside Indigenous Services
Minister Marc Miller, announced they have reached the agreement to
resolve the suit. The agreement includes $1.5 billion in
compensation for individuals affected by the lack of clean drinking
water, $400 million for the creation of a First Nation Economic and
Cultural Restoration Fund, and at least $6 billion to support
reliable access to safe drinking water on First Nation reserves.
The agreement also promises to promote the autonomy of First
Nations, allowing them to assume more control over infrastructure.

Michael Rosenberg, who represented the First Nations in court,
said: "This historic agreement recognizes a basic human right to
clean drinking water [and] compensates those who were wrongly
deprived of it . . . All Canadians should be proud of these
measures to end a water crisis."

Chief Doreen Spence of Tataskweyak Cree Nation stated: "[The
agreement] signals Canada's recognition of the harmful trauma that
we have suffered . . . [and] provides First Nations with
compensation for hardships that we should not have had to
experience." Representatives from the Neskantaga community were
similarly optimistic about the development, but reminded audiences
that the problem is not yet fully resolved: "Our suffering is still
going on. We are cautious about promises . . . It is time
Neskantaga got clean drinking water."

In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ran on the promise to end
all long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on
First Nations reserves by March 2021. In December 2020, the
government announced that the commitment would not be met.

In February, the auditor general released a report highlighting
reasons for the government's failure. The report showed how
outdated policies and funding formulas, a lack of a regulatory
regime, and a focus on "interim measures" over long-term and
sustainable solutions worked against the government's chances for
success.

The auditor general recommended that "Indigenous Services Canada
should work with First Nations communities to strengthen efforts to
eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories and prevent new
ones from occurring" in an effort to decrease the risk to the
health and safety of First Nations communities.

According to a new tracking system released on a government
website, at least 51 long-term drinking water advisories still
exist, primarily in Ontario. [GN]

CHIAWANA INC: Ayala Files Suit in Washington Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chiawana, Inc. The
case is styled as Rosa Ayala, Amalia Garibay, and others similarly
situated v. Chiawana, Inc., Case No. 21-2-01386-39 (Wash. Super.
Ct., Yakima Cty., Aug. 5, 2021).

The case type is stated as "COM Commercial."

Chiawana, Inc. was founded in 1991. The Company's line of business
includes crop harvesting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Cote, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (206) 682-6711
          Email: mcote@frankfreed.com


COGNIZANT TECH: Bid to Certify Order for Immediate Appeal Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company's motion to certify the June 7, 2020 order denying case
dismissal for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1292(b), has been denied.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers at that
time as defendants.

These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on
April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased our common stock during the period between February 27,
2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its
current and former officers at that time as defendants and alleging
violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements related to potential violations of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company's business, prospects
and operations, and the effectiveness of the company's internal
controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and
procedures.

The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the USDC-NJ issued an
order which granted the motions to dismiss in part, including
dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company,
and denied them in part.

On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the USDC-NJ to
certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b).

On October 18, 2018, the USDC-NJ issued an order granting the
company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of the
company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal with the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit
denied our petition without prejudice.

In an order dated March 19, 2019, the USDC-NJ directed the lead
plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended
complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 10, 2019. On June 7, 2020, the USDC-NJ issued an order
denying the companyt's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On July 10, 2020, the company filed its answer to the second
amended complaint. On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) filed a motion on consent for leave to intervene and to stay
all discovery through the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in
United States v. Gordon J. Coburn and Steven Schwartz, Crim. No.
19-120 (KM), except for documents produced by the company to the
DOJ in connection with those criminal proceedings.

On July 24, 2020, the USDC-NJ granted the DOJ's motion; and on that
same day, the company filed a motion in the USDC-NJ to certify the
June 7, 2020 order for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On March 17, 2021, the
USDC-NJ issued an order denying the company's motion.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North
America,Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is
based in Teaneck, New Jersey.


COLLECTCO INC: Nevada Court Grants in Part Doe's Bid to Reopen Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE, Plaintiff v. COLLECTCO, INC., dba COLLECTION
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendant, Case No.
2:06-cv-00244-JCM-DJA (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
Albregts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to seal as it relates to
        ECF Nos. 12-1, 16, 17, and 19;

   (ii) granted in part the Plaintiff's motions to seal; and

  (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to seal, appending
        his notice for judicial notice.

Before the Court is Plaintiff John Doe's motion to seal, motion to
reopen case, motion to seal attaching a supplement, and two motions
to seal attaching motions for judicial notice.

Through his motion to seal and reopen, the Plaintiff seeks to
reopen the case to seal the record and replace his name with "John
Doe."  The Plaintiff explains that he is protected under California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.3 and California Government
Code Section 6205 ("Safe at Home Program") which allows crime
victims to keep their addresses confidential.  The Plaintiff
supplemented his motion a few months later and filed motions for
judicial notice of other court decisions sealing or redacting his
information.

Discussion

A. Ninth Circuit authority applies to the case.

Although the Plaintiff asks the Court to apply California law,
Judge Albregts holds that the case he cites does not support his
position.  The Plaintiff uses Maldonado v. Sec'y of Cal. Dept. of
Corrs. and Rehab., No. 2:06-cv-0269-MCE/GGH, 2007 WL 4249811, at
*5-6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 207), for the proposition that the Court
should apply California law to seal his case.  However, Maldonado
is distinguishable because it involved an ongoing case with mixed
questions of state and federal law.  In the case, however, the
Plaintiff's case has been closed for 15 years.  Even when it was
active, it involved only questions of federal and Nevada law, not
California law.  California law does not apply, rather, the Court
applies Ninth Circuit rules governing, the use of fictitious names
and sealing cases.

B. The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to seal the entire
case.

To the extent that the Plaintiff asks the Court to seal the entire
case, Judge Albregts declines.  He explains that courts ask two
questions to determine whether a qualified First Amendment right of
public access applies to a particular proceeding or document: (1)
whether the place and process have historically been open to the
press and general public; and (2) whether public access plays a
significant positive role in the functioning of the particular
process in question.  Even when this test is satisfied, however,
the Judge holds that the public's First Amendment right of access
establishes only a strong presumption of openness, and "the public
still can be denied access if closure is necessitated by a
compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve
that interest."

The Plaintiff does not overcome the First Amendment right of public
access to the case docket.  Under the Ninth Circuit test: (1)
court's dockets have historically been open to the press and
general public; and (2) public access plays a positive role in the
function of preserving case records.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff does not overcome this right because the remedy of
sealing the entire docket is not narrowly tailored to achieving the
goal of protecting information covered by the Safe at Home
Program.

In addition, Judge Albregts finds that the Plaintiff has also not
sufficiently connected the threats he has received to the docket to
seal the entire record.  The Plaintiff asks the entire case to be
sealed.  However, the Plaintiff speculates that a criminal
enterprise is the source of threats against him.  The docket also
contains very few references to the Plaintiff's address or email.
On balance, however, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff has
provided evidence of a serious threat.  He thus denies the
Plaintiff's motion insofar as it asks for his entire case to be
sealed.

C. The Court grants' the Plaintiff's motion to redact his personal
information.

Judge Albregts rules that the Plaintiff has shown sufficient
reasons to redact his personal information from the record.  He
says, while the Safe at Home Program is not able to delete
information that already exists in public records, it does provide
that "participants should request that confidential information on
public records be replaced by their Safe at home designated mailing
address."

The Judge finds good reason to redact the Plaintiff's address and
email and replace his name with "John Doe."  He says, the Plaintiff
has provided evidence of his participation in the Safe at Home
Program, of a threat, and of his connection with a criminal event.
And through his motions, the Plaintiff seeks to follow the
recommendations of the Safe at Home Program, asking -- in the
alternative to sealing -- for the Court to replace his name with
"John Doe" and redact his addresses.  The Judge finds the Southern
District of California's approach to the Plaintiffs' similar
requests persuasive, although he does not find the need to take
judicial notice of the cases the Plaintiff submitted in his motions
to seal.  He holds that while the Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient reasons to seal his entire record, he has provided
enough for the Court to replace his address on the docket with his
Safe at Home address, to redact his address and email, and to
replace his name with "John Doe."

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Judge Albregts granted the Plaintiff's
motion to seal as it relates to ECF Nos. 12-1, 16, 17, and 19 is
granted.  These items are to remain sealed.  He granted in part the
Plaintiff's motions to seal.  He denied as moot the Plaintiff's
motion to seal, appending his notice for judicial notice.

The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to replace the Plaintiff's
address on the docket with his Safe at Home address -- P.O. Box
1679, Sacramento CA 958122 -- and to replace ECF Nos. 7, 15, and 18
with redacted versions of those documents attached to the Order as
Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.  The Clerk of Court is also
directed to replace the Plaintiff's name with "John Doe" on the
docket and in all publicly and electronically available documents
to conceal his true name.  Thereafter the Court directs the Clerk
to re-close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3hu7crzh from Leagle.com.


CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Young v. DOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL A. YOUNG, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. NED LAMONT, ET
AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:21cv474 (VLB) (D. Conn.), Judge Vanessa
L. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut:


    (i) dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted in the
        Complaint by Plaintiff Brian Hogan and Plaintiff Westly
        Lopes;

   (ii) denied Plaintiff Young's Motion to Proceed In Forma
        Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g); and

  (iii) denied Plaintiff Young's Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiffs Young, Hogan, and Lopes, initiated the civil action by
filing a complaint against 17 Department of Correction employees,
the governor and attorney general of the State of Connecticut,
three state court judges, two attorneys and two state court clerks.
The Plaintiffs neglected to submit either the filing fee or
applications to proceed in forma pauperis with the complaint.

On April 8, 2021, the Court issued Notices of Insufficiency
ordering each Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis or to pay the $402 filing fee and informing each Plaintiff
that if he failed to comply with the Notice within 21 days, the
complaint would be dismissed as to any claims asserted by him.  In
response, Plaintiff Young filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.  Young has also filed a motion seeking class
certification.

Analysis

I. Plaintiffs Hogan and Lopes

Judge Bryant holds that in civil actions filed by more than one
plaintiff, district courts within the Second Circuit have routinely
held that each plaintiff must either submit an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, citing Jackson v.
Doe Kitchen Manager, No. 3:18-CV-1884 (VAB). 2020 WL 4569859, at *2
(D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2020) (dismissing claims asserted by two
plaintiffs who did not file in forma pauperis applications)
(collecting cases).  Neither Plaintiff Hogan, nor Plaintiff Lopes
has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the
filing fee within the time specified in the April 8, 2021 Notices
of Insufficiency.  Accordingly, the allegations asserted in the
complaint by Plaintiff Hogan and by Plaintiff Lopes are dismissed
without prejudice.

II. Plaintiff Young

Plaintiff Young claims that he is unable to pay the $402 fee to
commence the civil action due to his indigency.  He requests leave
to proceed in forma pauperis without pre-paying the filing fee.

In 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act amended 28 U.S.C. Section
1915 by adding the following subsection: "(g) In no event will a
prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3
or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury."

Judge Bryant finds that provision of section 1915 requires the
denial of Plaintiff Young's applications to proceed in forma
pauperis.  On June 4, 2018, the Court dismissed a civil action
filed by Plaintiff Young with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A -- Young v. Duncan, et al., Case No. 3:18cv357(AWT)
(Initial Review Order, ECF No. 7).  On Aug. 24, 2018 and on Dec.
21, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed
appeals filed by Plaintiff Young pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e) on the ground that the appeals lacked an arguable factual
or legal basis -- Young v. Oliver. Case No. 17-4011 (Mandate
dismissing appeal, Aug. 24, 2018, ECF No. 41); Young v. Duncan.
Case No. 18-1775 (Mandate dismissing appeal).  Because the three
strikes provision applies in the case, Plaintiff Young may not
bring the present action without payment of the filing fee absent
allegations of "imminent danger of serious physical injury."

To proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Judge Bryant
explains that Plaintiff Young must meet two requirements.  He must
show that (1) the imminent danger of serious physical injury he
alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in the
complaint and (2) that a favorable judicial outcome would redress
the injury.  In addition, the danger of imminent harm must be
present at the time the complaint is filed.

The Judge concludes that neither the facts asserted in the
complaint, nor the nature of the relief sought, nor the information
in the many pages of exhibits filed in support of the complaint
suggest that Plaintiff Young was in imminent danger of serious
physical harm or injury at the time that he filed this action.
Furthermore, the she cannot discern any imminent danger of harm
that is "fairly traceable" to the conduct that is described in the
complaint or the relief sought.  Thus, Plaintiff Young has not met
the imminent harm exception to the three strikes provision set
forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) and his application to proceed
in forma pauperis is denied.

Conclusion

Judge Bryant dismissed without prejudice the claims asserted in the
Complaint by Plaintiff Hogan and Plaintiff Lopes under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b) for failure to either pay the filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.  She denied Plaintiff
Young's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(g).

In view of the dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs Hogan
and Lopes and the denial of Plaintiff Young's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Judge denied the Motion for Class
Certification.  Plaintiff Young cannot proceed on behalf of anyone
other than himself.

All further proceedings in the matter will be held in abeyance for
21 days pending Plaintiff Young's delivery of the filing fee in the
amount of $402 (cash, money order, or bank or cashier's check made
payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court) to the Clerk's Office,
450 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

If Plaintiff Young fails to tender the filing fee within 21 days
from the date of the order, the Court will dismiss the claims
asserted by Plaintiff Young without prejudice and direct the Clerk
to close the case.  The Plaintiff may move to reopen the case upon
a showing of good cause within 35 days after it is closed, after
which the dismissal will be converted to a dismissal with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26zn6fds from Leagle.com.


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Melucci Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, Melucci v.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-01372-LHK.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).

The complaint named the company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period extending from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on
December 6, 2019.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January
27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on
March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff withdrew its consolidated
complaint and filed a second amended complaint.

On May 11, 2020, the company moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On November 20, 2020, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss, while granting plaintiff leave to file a third
amended complaint, which plaintiff did on December 21, 2020. On
February 19, 2021, the company moved to dismiss this third amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the company's motion
on April 20, 2021 and the company filed its reply on June 4, 2021.


There is no timetable as to when the Court will rule on these
motions.

Corcept Therapeutics said, "We will respond vigorously to
plaintiff's claims but cannot predict the outcome of this matter."

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


DFINITY FOUNDATION: Investors File Class Action Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ross Sorkin, Jason Karaian, Sarah Kessler, Stephen Gandel,
Lauren Hirsch and Ephrat Livni, writing for The New York Times,
report that the crypto token known as ICP, tied to a project
supported by prestigious investors, was introduced in May and has
generated buzz, controversy and a lawsuit. In a proposed class
action in California, aggrieved ICP investors are raising one of
crypto's fundamental questions: When is a token a commodity, like
oil or gold, and when is it a security, subject to the stricter
legal requirements of stocks?

Not all cryptocurrencies are created equal. Bitcoin is mined
algorithmically and there is no central ownership, so it's
considered a commodity for regulatory purposes. But if a crypto
token represents an investment contract -- a stake in a project
that raises an expectation of profits from a central entity's
efforts -- it may be a security. The S.E.C. sued Ripple last year,
saying that its token, XRP, was an unregistered security. The
pending enforcement case is considered an industry litmus test.

"The S.E.C. has limited bandwidth," said David Scott, a lawyer for
the aggrieved ICP investors. He said that private litigation could
"bring integrity to the market."

The Dfinity Foundation mints ICP. The tokens support Dfinity's
Internet Computer platform, which hosts other blockchain projects
and has high-profile backers such as Andreessen Horowitz and
Polychain Capital. Shortly after its introduction, ICP's value
soared to the tens of billions of dollars but then suddenly tanked.
Retail investors complained that Dfinity had made claiming their
tokens difficult while insiders had profited. The lawsuit argues
that Dfinity and its backers violated securities laws.

A spokesman for Dfinity said that the suit was "baseless" and that
ICP was not a security, describing it as a "source of fuel that
powers computation." Andreessen and Polychain did not respond to
requests for comment. [GN]


DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Kucharski Suit Over 30% Drop of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAL KUCHARSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIDI GLOBAL INC. f/k/a XIAOJU KUAIZHI INC.,
WILL WEI CHENG, ALAN YUE ZHUO, JEAN QING LIU, STEPHEN JINGSHI ZHU,
ZHIYI CHEN, MARTIN CHI PING LAU, KENTARO MATSUI, ADRIAN PERICA, and
DANIEL YONG ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06603 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
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 DiDi's business, operations,
and prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
order to trade DiDi securities at artificially inflated prices
between June 30, 2021 and July 21, 2021. Specifically, the
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (ii) the CAC had already asked DiDi weeks or months
prior to the IPO to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of
its network security and because of national security concerns;
(iii) the company was likely to incur heightened regulatory
scrutiny and adverse regulatory action by ignoring the CAC's
request to postpone the IPO; (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores
in China, which would have an adverse effect on its financial
results and operations; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, DiDi's share price fell $3.44 per share, or
nearly 30%, over the next two trading days to close at $8.06 per
share on July 23, 2021, further damaging investors.

DiDi Global Inc., formerly known as Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc., is a
mobility technology platform company, with its principal executive
offices located in Beijing, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         James M. LoPiano, 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
                 jlopiano@pomlaw.com

DIGITAL MEDIA: Faces Handelsman Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HANDELSMAN, individually and on behalf of all, others
similarly situated v.DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
131157824 (FLA. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 21, 2021) is a class
action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls
have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including
violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.

The Defendant is a leading provider of technology-enabled digital
performance advertising solutions connecting consumers and
advertisers within auto, home, health and life insurance plus a
long list of top consumer verticals.

To promote its goods and services, Defendant allegedly engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, as
defined below, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          Florida Bar No. 94235
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 533-409

DR. MIDAS MEDICAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Park Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINGER PARK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DR. MIDAS
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No.
B301873 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order denying
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the
purported agreement to arbitrate is unconscionable.

Plaintiff Ginger Park filed a class action complaint alleging wage
and hour claims against her former employer, Midas, Midas's CEO Han
Tae Choe, and Youngjoo Hahn.

The Plaintiff worked for Midas as a "consultant/store manager" or
"manager" between 2014 and 2018.  In 2019, the Plaintiff filed a
putative class action against the Defendants alleging meal period
and rest break violations (Lab. Code, Sections 226.7, 512), minimum
wage and overtime violations (Lab. Code, Sections 510, 1194, 1198),
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Lab. Code,
Sections 226, 1174), failure to timely pay final wages (Lab. Code,
Sections 201-204), and violation of the Unfair Competition Law
(Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.).

About six months after the Plaintiff filed her complaint, the
Defendants moved to compel arbitration.  In a declaration
accompanying the motion, CEO Choe explained defendants were
initially "unable to locate the Plaintiff's employment agreement
because it was not in her employee file," but had "recently" found
it in a filing cabinet.

The employment agreement consists of eight pages numbered one
through five and seven through nine.  Neither party discusses the
absence of a page six, but this appears to be a missing page rather
than a pagination error.  Park's name is signed on the first and
last pages of the agreement, though she filed a declaration stating
she "does not recall signing" it.  Several other pre-printed lines
on the agreement remain blank, including lines for the date of the
agreement, the Plaintiff's position and salary, and the signature
of a representative of Midas.  Section 11 of the agreement, printed
in bold type, runs from page seven to page eight and contains the
arbitration provision.

The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
on several grounds, including the ground that the Defendants could
not establish the existence of a valid contract and, in any case,
the employment agreement's arbitration provision is unconscionable.
The trial court denied the motion to compel.  The court's
reasoning is not reflected in its minute order, and the Defendants
did not request a statement of decision.  The record on appeal does
not include a reporter's transcript from the hearing on the
Defendants' motion or a settled or agreed statement concerning the
reasons for the court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals opines that there is not much it can do with
the case.  The Defendants have the burden to affirmatively show
error on appeal and it is a court of review (at least for appellate
proceedings), not a court of first resort.  They provide the Court
with no reporter's transcript or suitable substitute that would
document the proceedings at the hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration, and the Court of Appeals has no clue as to the trial
court's reasons for the ruling it made.  The defect is fatal and
requires affirmance.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.  The Plaintiff will
recover her costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/34zj93cw from Leagle.com.

Law Office of Chad Biggins and Chad Biggins for Defendants and
Appellants.

Law Office of Jonathan Ricasa and Jonathan Ricasa --
jricasa@ricasalaw.com; Briana Kim -- briana@briana.kim -- for
Plaintiff and Respondent.


EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. ("Eagle or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EGBN). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Eagle and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On July 21, 2021, Eagle issued a press release announcing its
financial and operating results for the second quarter of 2021.
Among other items, Eagle disclosed that in connection with a
previously disclosed investigation by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Eagle's "Chief Financial Officer recently
received a Wells Notice from the [SEC] Staff that the Staff has
made a preliminary determination to recommend to the [SEC]
enforcement actions against him."

On this news, Eagle Bancorp's stock price fell $3.12 per share, or
5.58%, to close at $52.81 per share on July 22, 2021.

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

CONTACT:

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

EB GOLF: Gallagher Sues Over Disclosure of Private Reading Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GALLAGHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EB GOLF MEDIA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-11795-DML-KGA (E.D. Mich., August 4, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of Michigan's
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed the Plaintiff's
Private Reading Information, which identified him as a subscriber
of the Defendant's Golf magazine. The Defendant disclosed mailing
lists containing the Plaintiff's Private Reading Information to
data aggregators, data appenders, and data cooperatives. Moreover,
the Defendant rented and/or exchanged its mailing lists to third
parties, including other consumer-facing companies, direct-mail
advertisers, and organizations soliciting monetary contributions,
volunteer work, and votes. The Plaintiff and Class members never
consented to the Defendant disclosing their Private Reading
Information to anyone. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
unlawful disclosure of their Private Reading Information, the
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered invasions of their
statutorily protected right to privacy.

EB Golf Media LLC is a magazine publisher, with its headquarters
and principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

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

ENDEAVOR AIR: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Levy FLSA Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY LEVY, MAURICE ROMALHO, and EMAD HAMID, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENDEAVOR
AIR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04387 (E.D.N.Y., August 4,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
pay timely wages.

Ms. Levy was employed by Endeavor as a flight attendant from
September 2016 to May 4, 2018.

Mr. Romalho has been employed by Endeavor as a maintenance worker,
mechanic, and inspector from May 2014 to the present.

Ms. Hamid has been employed by Endeavor as a mechanic since
approximately June 2018 through the present.

Endeavor Air, Inc. is a regional airline, headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
         Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

FACEBOOK INC: Klein Moynihan Attorney Discusses TCPA Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging
has become a ubiquitous form of communication for people over the
last decade. Consequently, marketers and advertisers who are
continuously refining their processes to more successfully connect
with current and prospective consumers have gravitated to the
medium in droves. Oftentimes, however, they do so without regard
for the nuanced and particular regulations that govern SMS text
message marketing.

What are the rules applicable to SMS text messaging?

Both federal and state laws provide unique privacy protections for
cellphone subscribers. In fact, there are strict regulations
governing the manner in which cellular telephone numbers may be
contacted for marketing purposes. The foremost of these laws is the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In general, the
TCPA prohibits placing telephone calls to cell phones through use
of automatic dialing equipment without the prior express consent of
the call recipient. It is not unusual for businesses to engage in
SMS text messaging campaigns under the assumption that the TCPA
does not apply to them. This amounts to a misinformed understanding
of the TCPA's compliance requirements. The TCPA has long been
interpreted by courts and regulators to apply equally to SMS text
messaging as it does to traditional telephone calls. A guiding
principle for businesses is that if they attempt to contact
consumers on their cellphones, the TCPA is likely to govern such
communications.

Obtaining a consumer's prior express consent to contact her/him via
automated means will help inoculate against potential liability,
notwithstanding the TCPA's restrictions. Nevertheless, what passes
for sufficient prior express consent is constantly being contested
by regulators and class action plaintiffs alike. Challenges to the
adequacy and conspicuousness of consent disclosures, or the breadth
or narrowness of the scope of consent, have only increased in the
last few years.

Implications of Facebook Decision on SMS Text Message Marketing
For most businesses, engaging in text message campaigns is likely
to involve use of automatic telephone dialing equipment in order to
maximize the cost efficiencies of SMS text messaging. Which dialing
equipment is regulated by the TCPA has been a heated topic of
debate for years. Recently, the United States Supreme Court
provided a measure of clarity to this debate when it issued its
decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. Through that ruling, the
Supreme Court reinforced the principle that the TCPA requires
equipment to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or
sequential number generator in order to come within the statute's
purview. For those companies that rely on telemarketing to build
the bottom line, the Facebook ruling was a significant positive
development.

Maintaining SMS Text Messaging Compliance
There is little question anymore that SMS text message marketing is
an efficient and cost effective means to service potential and
existing customers. Nevertheless, such campaigns are not without
risk in today's regulatory climate. TCPA class action lawsuits
remain among the most frequently filed cases in federal court,
finding in their crosshairs even the most buttoned up businesses.
The most effective means to reduce the likelihood of such a lawsuit
is to engage experienced and knowledgeable marketing counsel to
review all aspects of your text message marketing practices. [GN]

FARM JOURNAL: Hall Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farm Journal, Inc.
The case is styled as Tia Hall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Farm Journal, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-11811-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Farm Journal -- https://www.farmjournal.com/ -- is America's #1
provider of connected agriculture content, producer insights and
go-to-market business solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


FELDMAR WATCH: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Downing Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN DOWNING, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FELDMAR WATCH CO., INC.,, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-05918-VAP-RAO (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.feldmarwatch.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Defendant offers the said website to the public. The website
offers features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with its
physical location. The goods and services offered by Defendant
include, but are not limited to, the following, which allow
consumers to access luxury timepieces for the following fine
brands: Accutron, Baume & Mercier, Bell & Ross, Breitling,
Glashutte Original, Grand Seiko, G-Shock, Hamilton, Junghans,
Longines, Montblanc, NOMOS, Omega, Oris, Seiko, TAG Heuer, TUDOR,
Zenith, and Zodiac.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

FIREBIRDS OF DANIA: Violates Rehabilitation Act, Lucius Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. FIREBIRDS OF DANIA BEACH, LLC d/b/a Firebirds Wood
Fired Grill, Case No. 1:21-cv-22610-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2021)
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated suing Firebirds for injunctive relief, and attorney's
fees, damages, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade County, is
sui juris, and is otherwise qualified as an individual with
disabilities as defined by the RA. The Plaintiff is blind and
therefore, unable to fully engage in and enjoy the major life
activity of seeing.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff also utilizes the
Internet. The Plaintiff is unable to read computer materials and/or
access and comprehend Internet website information without software
specially designed for the visually impaired. Specifically,
Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS Screen Reader software, which is one of
the most popular reader Screen Reader Software (SRS) utilized
worldwide.

The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a business that
is a recipient of federal financial assistance in Broward County.

The Defendant constructed, or caused to be constructed, a website
located at https://firebirdrestaurants.com/. The Defendant is the
owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the website. This website
supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is
complementary and supplemental to, the restaurant. This website
provides information about Defendant's restaurant, including
information about the special sales, goods, services,
accommodations, privileges, benefits and facilities available to
patrons at physical locations. The website also allows customers to
make reservations.

The Plaintiff desires to access the website to avail herself of the
benefits, therein, and/or to assure herself that this website is in
compliance with the RA so that she and others similarly situated
will have full and equal enjoyment of the website without fear of
discrimination. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage
without the immediate relief provided by the Rehabilitation Act.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 351-2014
          E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com

FLUENT INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Pepper Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CODY PEPPER, TERRI PEPPER, JULIUS BRYANT, KIMBERLY HUDSON, DEMYA
JOHNSON, and ALLISON POWERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLUENT, INC. and REWARD ZONE USA,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06581-JGK (S.D.N.Y., August 4,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the North Carolina General
Statute, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the Washington
Statute.

The case arises from the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiffs' and all
other similarly situated consumers' residential and cellular
telephones registered on the National Do Not Call Registry using
automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) without obtaining their
prior express consent.

Fluent, Inc. is an advertising agency company, with its principal
place of business located at 300 Vesey St., 9th Floor, New York,
New York.

Reward Zone USA, LLC is an advertising firm, with its principal
place of business located at 128 Court Street, 3rd Floor, White
Plains, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Javier L. Merino, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
         Westwood, NJ 07675
         Telephone: (201) 355-3440
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536

               - and –

         Marc E. Dann, Esq.
         Brian D. Flick, Esq.
         DANNLAW
         P.O. Box. 6031040
         Cleveland, OH 44103
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and –

         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Jeffrey Blake, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com

               - and –

         Max Morgan, Esq.
         Eric Weitz, Esq.
         THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
         1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (267) 587-6240
         Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
         E-mail: Max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
                 Eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Defective Sunroof Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
sunroof lawsuit has failed class action certification after the
judge ruled the plaintiffs failed to show there was a common defect
with the panoramic sunroofs that allegedly shatter.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Jessica Beaty was driving her
2013 Ford Escape in February 2017 when the panoramic sunroof (PSR)
suddenly exploded and rained glass onto her and her young
daughter.

Beaty filed the Ford sunroof lawsuit in March 2017 alleging the
panoramic sunroofs are defective in multiple Ford and Lincoln
models. The latest version of the lawsuit includes these vehicles.

2007-2014 Ford Edge
2013-2017 Ford Escape
2011-2017 Ford Explorer
2007-2015 Lincoln MKX
2010-2017 Lincoln MKT
2009-2016 Lincoln MKS

A judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2020 but the plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal and in April 2021 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's order.

According to the Ninth Circuit, "there is a triable issue of
material fact regarding whether Ford knew about the risk that the
PSRs would spontaneously shatter in its 2013 Ford Escape model."
Additionally, "a reasonable juror could find that the risk of a
spontaneously shattering PSR is material to consumers."

Based on the remand to the lower court, the district judge ruled on
the motion for class action certification.

Judge Denies Ford Sunroof Lawsuit Class Action Certification
According to the judge, the plaintiffs argue the central common
issue in the sunroof lawsuit is a defect in the panoramic sunroofs
and "their propensity to shatter unexpectedly and spontaneously due
to the deficiencies making them unable to withstand the rigors of
ordinary and expected use."

The plaintiffs allege the evidence shows common defects in
panoramic sunroofs with tempered glass panels manufactured by
either Webasto or Inalfa.

Ford argues a common defect isn't possible because there are
"significant differences" among the sunroofs, including the sizes,
locations and configurations. (See photo above)

Ford also references the vast difference among claim and
replacement rates of the sunroofs in different models.

The plaintiffs admit there are differences in the height, width and
shapes of the various vehicles and the distance of the sunroofs
from the bumpers.

However, the plaintiffs claim the differences "are of no
consequence" because "it does not matter how Ford placed the
tempered glass on Class Vehicles, it should not have done so at
all, regardless of location, orientation or geometry."

Judge Zilly ruled in favor of Ford by finding the plaintiffs don't
show a common defect among the panoramic sunroofs and have "not
provided sufficient evidentiary support for their argument that a
common PSR defect exists due to certain common design features."

According to the judge, Ford's evidence shows the different
designs, sizes, locations, etc. affect the chances of the sunroofs
shattering. This is demonstrated by the various claim and
replacement rates which vary among different models.

"In light of the significant variations in the PSRs' designs and
propensities to shatter, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a common
defect. Nor have Plaintiffs shown by a preponderance of evidence,
based on the current record, that the PSRs are commonly defective
due to the use of tempered glass. Ford's use of tempered glass is
not unique to the Class Vehicles' PSRs, as other car manufacturers
also used tempered glass in their PSRs." — Judge Zilly

And although the plaintiffs allege Ford has known about sunroof
defects in all the vehicles since at least 2008, the judge agrees
with Ford's argument that the plaintiff's evidence "merely
establishes that what it knew and when varied for each make, model,
and model year defined as a Class Vehicle."

The judge says the evidence is enough to show a "triable fact
exists on whether Ford knew of a PSR defect in Plaintiffs' 2013
Ford Escape."

However, the evidence doesn't show Ford knew of sunroof defects in
all the vehicles at the same time, "or that Ford's knowledge of one
Class Vehicle's PSR defect can be reasonably imputed to all other
Class Vehicles' PSRs."

The Ford sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington: Beaty, et al., v. Ford Motor
Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Terrell Marshall Law Group,
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg Coleman Law PC. [GN]

FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL: VanOcker Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foundation for
National Progress. The case is styled as Colleen VanOcker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Foundation for National Progress, Case No. 1:21-cv-00669 (W.D.
Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Foundation for National Progress operates as a nonprofit news
organization. The Organization specializes in investigative,
political, and social justice reporting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Ongoing in Senior Preferred Stock Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action suit.

In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European Insurance Company
vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu
Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on
September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a
shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among
other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective
contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common
stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012.

The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock
issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period
of time.

Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA, and
Treasury.

This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The allegations and
demands made by plaintiffs in this case were generally similar to
those made by the plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations
case described above.

Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also requested that, if
injunctive relief were not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be
awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be
determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value
of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they stated to
be approximately $42 million.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapelle, and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA.

This case was filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a nominal defendant, on
July 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that, through the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and FHFA breached
their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac, causing Freddie
Mac to suffer damages. The plaintiffs asked that Freddie Mac be
awarded compensatory damages and disgorgement, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses.


FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in
January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. In
September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision granting the
motions to dismiss. The DC Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims
except certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of
contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.


In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims. On
July 17, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the petitions for rehearing
and issued a modified decision, which permitted the institutional
plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and breach of implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that had been remanded.


The DC Circuit also removed language related to the standard to be
applied to the implied duty claims, leaving that issue for the
District Court to determine on remand. On October 16, 2017, certain
institutional and class plaintiffs filed petitions for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging whether HERA's
prohibition on injunctive relief against FHFA bars judicial review
of the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement, as well as whether HERA bars
shareholders from pursuing derivative litigation where they allege
the conservator faces a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court
denied the petitions on February 20, 2018.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and
plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally
a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal
National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in
the District Court.

Each of the proposed amended complaints names Freddie Mac as a
defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law. On
January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to
dismiss the amended complaints.

On September 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed all of the
claims except those alleging breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

Discovery is ongoing.

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal on Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's
motion to dismiss the appeal in the putative securities class
action suit entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al., is pending.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning the company's business, risk management, and
the procedures the company put into place to protect the company
from problems in the mortgage industry.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On July 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On January 23, 2019, the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff's petition
for leave to appeal that decision. On September 17, 2020, the
District Court granted a request from the plaintiff for summary
judgment and entered final judgment in favor of Freddie Mac and the
other defendants.

On October 9, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth Circuit.

On January 27, 2021, Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal.

Freddie Mac said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of the appellate process, and the inherent
uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event the case is
ultimately remanded to the District Court in whole or in part. In
particular, while the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification, this decision and the entry of final judgment
in defendants' favor have been appealed. Absent a final resolution
of whether a class will be certified, the identification of a class
if one is certified, and the identification of the alleged
statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss."

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Misclassifies Dancers, Washington Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALAIKA WASHINGTON and INGRID ALATORRE, on behalf of Themselves and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION, L.L.C. d/b/a Bones Cabaret; WISNOWSKI, INC. d/b/a Skin
Cabaret; SKIN CABARET LLC; TODD BOROWSKY, Individually; and ERIKA
DONALDSON, Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-01318-MTL (D. Ariz., July
29, 2021) alleges that the Defendants, required Malaika Washington
and Ingrid to work as an exotic dancer at their adult entertainment
clubs, but refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum
wage.

Specifically, Defendants misclassified dancers, including the
Plaintiffs, as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs' only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons; the clubs
paid no wages. In fact, Defendants required Plaintiffs to pay a
"house fee" in order to work in the clubs. Essentially, Defendants
took money from Plaintiffs under the premise that they had to pay
for their space at the clubs. Plaintiffs were also required to
share their tips with Defendants and their employees who do not
customarily receive tips outside of a valid tip pool, the suit
says.

As a result, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and
all other members of the class collective minimum wage
compensation, which they were entitled to under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arizona state labor law including the Fair Wages
and Healthy Families Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this class and collective action against
Defendants seeking damages, backpay, restitution, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, and all other relief that the Court deems just, reasonable,
and equitable in the circumstances.

Plaintiff Malaika Washington is an individual residing in Maricopa
County, Arizona. She has worked for Defendant Freedom of Expression
from August 2017 to August 2019, on a consistent basis.
Additionally, she worked for Defendant Skin Cabaret from August
2017 to September 2018

Plaintiff Ingrid Alatorre is an individual residing in Maricopa
County, Arizona. She has worked for Defendant Freedom of Expression
from September 2018 to January 2020, on a consistent basis.
Additionally, she worked for Defendant Skin Cabaret from June 2020
to October 2020 on a consistent basis. She lived in Arizona and was
Defendants' employee.

The Defendants operate the adult entertainment clubs in Scottsdale,
Arizona under the names of "Bones Cabaret" and "Skin Cabaret". The
Defendants employ exotic dancers and have employed hundreds of
dancers over the years at The Clubs. The Plaintiffs were previously
employed as an exotic dancer at Skin Cabaret and Bones Cabaret
during the statutory time period.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          Michael Goldsmith, Esq
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: mgoldsmith@hftrialfirm.com

GALLAGHER BASSETT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Myers Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MYERS and JOHN PARSONS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. and
GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04056 (N.D.
Ill., July 29, 2021) sues the Defendants over failure to implement
or maintain adequate data security measures for their personally
identifiable information (PII).

Gallagher is an insurance and insurance brokerage company. Among
various types of insurance, Defendants provide insurance brokerage,
risk management, human resources, and benefits consulting
services.

On June 30, 2021, Gallagher began notifying customers and state
Attorneys General about a data breach that occurred between June
30, 2020 and September 26, 2020 (the "Data Breach"). Hackers
obtained information from Gallagher including personally
identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of its customers,
potential customers, employees and other consumers, including, but
not limited to their: names; Social Security numbers; tax
identification numbers; driver's license, passport, or other
government identification numbers; dates of birth; usernames and
passwords; employee identification numbers; financial account
information; credit card information; electronic signatures;
medical treatment, claim, diagnosis, medication or other medical
information; health insurance information; medical record or
account numbers; and biometric information.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members now face a present and imminent
lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of Social Security numbers and electronic signatures, says the
suit.

After the initial notification of Data Breach on June 30, 2021,
Gallagher discovered that additional customers and employees were
affected and, on or about July 16, 2021, Gallagher began notifying
the additional individuals of the Data Breach.

After the second notification of Data Breach, Gallagher discovered
that even more additional customers and employees were affected
and, on or about July 21, 2021, Gallagher began notifying the
additional individuals of the Data Breach.

As Gallagher well understands given that it provides its business
customers with Cyber Liability Insurance, "networks and data are
the lifeblood of business," and "cyber-attacks are increasing in
their frequency and their intensity." 2 And it is this exact
personal data on its networks that Defendants failed to protect
from cyber-attacks.

Not only did hackers steal the PII of Plaintiffs and class members,
but, upon information and belief, criminals have already used the
PII to attempt to steal certain of Plaintiffs' and class members'
identities. Hackers accessed and then either used or offered for
sale the unencrypted, unredacted, stolen PII to criminals. This
stolen PII has great value to hackers. Because of Defendants' Data
Breach, customers' PII is still available and may be for sale on
the dark web for criminals to access and abuse. Defendants'
customers and employees face a current and ongoing lifetime risk of
identity theft, alleges the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  gharoutunian@justice4you.com

GCN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Indo Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
XIMENA ANDREA BAHAMONDES INDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSTANTINO SCOUROUDIS;
GEORGE LABOS; and GCN RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a OPA GRILLE, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-04279 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Indo was employed by the Defendants as waitress.

GCN RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a OPA GRILLE owns and operates a restaurant
in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
          Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
          PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C.
          68 South Service Road Suite 100
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 427-0700
          E-mail: arehman@pervezrehman.com
                  npervez@pervezrehman.com


GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Class Certification of Franchise Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the grant
of class certification in the franchise fee related suit, is
pending.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.

This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years. In one recent appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court
remanded the case and noted that the trial court could refer the
matter to the Georgia PSC to interpret its tariffs.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling and also conditionally
certified the proposed class.

In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders.

Also in March 2019, Georgia Power appealed the class certification
decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals. In October 2019, the
Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has
appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.

In March 2020, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the Superior
Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order granting conditional
class certification and remanded the case to the Superior Court of
Fulton County for further proceedings.

In September 2020, the plaintiffs and Georgia Power each filed
motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs renewed their
motion for class certification. On March 16, 2021, the Superior
Court of Fulton County granted class certification and Georgia
Power's motion for summary judgment.

On March 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and, on
April 2, 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the
issue of class certification.

Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
estimated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."

Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.


GIGACQUISITIONS3 LLC: Lures Stockholders to OK Merger, Delman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DELMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIGACQUISITIONS3, LLC, AVI KATZ, RALUCA
DINU, NEIL MIOTTO, JOHN MIKULSKY, ANDREA BETTIBERUTTO, and PETER
WANG, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0679 (Del. Ch., August 4, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duty of
loyalty by approving the merger of GigCapital 3, Inc. (Gig3) with
Lightning eMotors, Inc., its financing, and recommending the
transaction to stockholders. The Defendants failed to consider the
fact that the transaction it was contemplating was in all
likelihood a far worse alternative for public stockholders than a
liquidation in which the stockholders would receive $10.10 per
share. The Defendants agreed to the merger without ensuring that it
was entirely fair to the Plaintiff and the Class. Moreover, the
Defendants made a false and misleading proxy statement for Gig3's
stockholders to vote in favor of the merger, says the suit.

GigAcquisitions3, LLC is a special purpose acquisition company
based in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         Michael D. Bell, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
         123 Justison St., 7th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 622-7000
         E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
                 mbell@gelaw.com

GROVE BAY: Faces Palmer Suit Over Failure to Pay Servers' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAX PALMER, Plaintiff v. GROVE BAY HOSPITALITY GROUP,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-22799-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 2,
2021) is a collective action complaint challenging the Defendant's
alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at the
Stilltsville restaurant from February 2021 through April 2021.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated servers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint alleging the Defendant of failing
to compensate him and other similarly situated servers for the time
they spent performing pre- and post-shift duties for the
Defendants. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, he and other similarly situated servers were not
paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.

Grove Bay Hospitality Group, LLC operates approximately 8 different
restaurants in South Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alejandro F. Garcia, Esq.
         RAMHOFER | GARCIA
         11900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 742
         North Miami, FL 33181
         Tel: (305) 481-9733
         Fax: (954) 697-0341
         E-mail: agarcia@ramhofergarcia.com

HALSTED FINANCIAL: Benhayun Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Halsted Financial Services,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sami Benhayun, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Halsted Financial
Services, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 5, 2021).

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

Halsted Financial Services, LLC -- https://halstedfinancial.com/ --
specializes in managing and servicing delinquent account
receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


HAWAII: PSD Class Action Over COVID-19 Unsafe Practices Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annalisa Burgos, writing for KITV, reports that the mother of a
pre-trial detainee who was transferred from the Big Island to Oahu
is calling on the state to bring him back and wants the Department
of Public Safety (PSD) to clarify why he was selected to go.

Alice Kahaleua says officials at the Hawaii Community Correctional
Center did not tell her the state was transferring her son, Dustin
Snedeker-Abadilla, to Halawa Correctional Facility.

In June, Snedeker-Abadilla was among the 28 inmates transferred to
Oahu. Seven were pre-trial detainees. The PSD cited the heightened
risk for the spread of COVID due to overcrowding at the Hilo jail.

"They still have rights, they committed crimes, committed crimes,
but my son is pretrial, he hasn't been even found guilty," she
said.

Kahaleua believes the state is treating her son like a felon
despite not having a trial and is violating his constitutional
rights.

"I want to know what mandated transfer, quarantine transfer is,
what is a special holding unit, and why do they have rules that
apply to all when in fact a person who goes into the jail system on
pretrial, they're not supposed to get the same treatment as one who
has been sentenced," she said.

Another concern? She says her son's asthma and other medical
conditions make him vulnerable to another infection.
Snedeker-Abadilla survived the coronavirus back in May while
awaiting trial.

But the family cannot afford his bail and he may not be lucky
again.

"I hear the fear in his voice, He's trying to be strong for me and
the fear of the unknown," Kahaleua said.

A PSD spokesperson declined to provide details on how transferees
were selected and said there is no set date for when pretrial
inmates will return to Hilo.

"I don't know what to do already. I feel so powerless," Kahaleua
said.

Snedeker-Abadilla is one of 11 plaintiffs in a federal class-action
lawsuit against the state who claim unsafe practices in prisons
caused COVID-19 outbreaks. He's awaiting trial for various charges,
including robbery, domestic abuse, theft and assault.

So far, HCCC reports a total of 259 cases at the facility -- three
inmates are active cases. [GN]

HOME POINT: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Home Point Capital Inc.
("Home Point" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:HMPT) and reminds investors
of the August 20, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff
in a federal securities class action that has been filed against
the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Home Point
stock or options between January 29, 2021 and May 6, 2021 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/HMPT.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would
dramatically increase the Company's expenses; (2) the mortgage
industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale
margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021 and Home Point
would be subject to the same competitive pressures; (3)
accordingly, the Company had overstated its business and financial
prospects; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

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

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

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Home Point's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ICON BURGER: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Demaria Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL DEMARIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICON BURGER ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a
SMASHBURGER, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04313 (E.D.N.Y., August 2,
2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged failure to timely pay its workers' wages that violated
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a store manager from
June 2016 to September 2019 at a Smashburger locations in Port
Washington and Hicksville.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated and
continues to violate the law by paying its manual workers every
other week rather than on a weekly basis. Thus, the Plaintiff
brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated manual workers to recover damages from the Defendant,
including liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, expenses and litigation costs.

Icon Burger Acquisition LLC d/b/a Smashburger owns a chain of
hamburger restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

INSURANCE MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ahuja Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHA AHUJA, individually, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees v. IMS -- INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES,
INC, and DOES 1-5, Case No. RG21106403 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
July 21, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wage for all hours worked, failed to reimburse work-related
expenses, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
in violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action, the Defendants have engaged in a system of
willful violations of California wage-and-hour laws by unlawfully
misclassifying their California mobile examiners or field
technicians as independent contractors. As a result, the Defendants
willfully denied the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
co-workers the benefits and protections of California Labor Code
and Industrial Wage Commission's applicable Wage Order.
Specifically, as a result of unlawful misclassification Defendants
willfully denied the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
co-workers minimum wage for all hours worked, and willfully failed
to reimburse Plaintiff and other similarly situated co-workers for
work-related expenses, added the suit.

The Defendants own, operate, and manage a paramedical examination
company that specializes in assisting insurance companies to
evaluate applicants during an underwriting process. Specifically,
Defendants provide mobile medical exams of insurance applicants.
According to its website, Defendants claim to have "over 5,000
medical examiners nationwide."

From January 2020 to April 24, 2021, the Defendants employed the
Plaintiff Ahuja as a Mobile Examiner. She was hired to perform
mobile health exams for individuals who applied for life or health
insurance. Her duties included drawing blood from patients,
checking blood pressure, measuring body mass index, and registering
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq.
          KUCHINSKY LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          11220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (628) 200-0902
          Facsimile: (628) 200-0907
          E-mail: ak@kuchinskylawoffice.com

J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Must File New Class Cert. Bid by August 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL,
on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. J.J.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (M.D.
Fla), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order terminating
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Gartrell must file an Amended Motion for Class Certification no
later than August 27, 2021. The Defendant J.J. Marshall must
respond no later than September 17, 2021, says Judge Corrigan.

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Jacara Gartrell's Motion
for Class Certification. The Court held a hearing on the motion on
July 26, 2021, the record of which is incorporated by reference.

Founded in 1976, J.J. Marshall leads in providing specialized
consumer and commercial debt collection services.

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

JAK PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Costs, Yates Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL YATES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. JAK PIZZA, INC., a Domestic corporation and
TIMOTHY R. HAMMER, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01125-YY (D. Ore., July 30, 2021) brings this complaint as
a class action against the Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as delivery driver from
approximately August 2019 to March 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have employed a flawed
automobile reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a
per-mile basis that equates to rates substantially below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate or much less than a reasonable
approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. As a result of
the Defendants' failure to adequately reimburse automobile
expenses, their drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the
federal minimum wage requirements, which constitutes a "kickback"
to the Defendants, the Plaintiff added.

Jak Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
owned and directed by Timothy R. Hammer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley A. Marton, Esq.
          Rebecca Cambreleng, Esq.
          CRISPIN MARTON CAMBRELENG
          1834 SW 58th Ave., Suite 200
          Portland, OR 97221
          Tel: (503) 293-5770
          Fax: (503) 293-5766
          E-mail: ashley@employmentlaw-nw.com
                  Rebecca@employmentlaw-nw.com

                - and –

          Meredith Mathews-Black, Esq.
          Katherine Serrano, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNE
          400 North St. Paul St., Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
                  kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

JAMES RIVER: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of James River Group Holdings, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: JRVR) investors that acquired shares between August 1,
2019 and May 5, 2021. Investors have until September 7, 2021 to
seek an active role in this litigation.

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

After the market closed, on October 8, 2019, James River disclosed
that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all
policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC. On October 9,
2019, James River's share price fell $11.06, or over 23%, on this
news, to close at $37.88 per share, thereby injuring investors.

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

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

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
7, 2021.

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

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

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

JC USA: Faces Sherman Class Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN SHERMAN, and on behalf of the general public as private
attorneys general, v. JC USA, Inc. dba Jenny Craig USA, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00032129-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 28,
2021) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code.

JC is a is an American weight loss, weight management, and
nutrition company with weight management centers throughout the
United States and the State of California.

Through this action, Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants engaged
in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have increased their
profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other
things: (a) failing to pay all lawful wages owed, including minimum
wages and overtime; (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, and (c) failing to authorize or
permit lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Samantha@jameshawkinsaplc.com

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Farwell District Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FARWELL AREA 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-05986 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the 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.

Farwell Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 399 East Michigan Street in Farwell, 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: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Township School Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 113, 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-05981 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Township High School District 113 is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1040 Park Avenue in West Highland Park,
Illinois.

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 Allen Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN 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-05994 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 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.

Allen Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 105 N. Denver in Allen, 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: Faces Sunset School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUNSET RIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 29, 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-05979 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Sunset Ridge School District 29 is a unified school district with
its offices located at 525 Sunset Ridge Road in Northfield,
Illinois.

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: Green School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREEN 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-05982 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Green Local School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1755 Town Park Boulevard in Green, 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: Lauderdale School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUDERDALE COUNTY 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-05996 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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, alleges the suit.

Lauderdale County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 301 46th Court P.O. Box 5498 Meridian,
Mississippi.

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, Enid School District Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ENID 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-05987 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the 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.

Enid Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 500 South Independence in Enid, 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: School District Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY, MOBILE COUNTY,
STATE OF ALABAMA, 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-06003 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Alabama 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 asserts.

Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Mobile County,
State of Alabama (BSCMC) is a school district with its offices
located at 1 Magnum Pass, Mobile, Alabama.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Frank G. Taylor, Esq.
         THE ATCHISON FIRM
         3030 Knollwood Drive
         Mobile, AL 36693
         Telephone: (251) 308-6523
         E-mail: Frank.Taylor@AtchisonLaw.com

JUUL LABS: Wood County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WOOD COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER, 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-05995 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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 added.

Wood County Educational Service Center is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1867 North Research Drive in Bowling
Green, 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

KALMBACH MEDIA: Owen Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalmbach Media Co.
The case is styled as Mike Owen, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Kalmbach Media Co.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11814-VAR-KGA (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Kalmbach Media -- https://www.kalmbach.com/ -- is an American
publisher of books and magazines, many of them railroad-related,
located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


KCI USA: Seeks Denial of Palmer Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE PALMER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KCI
USA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-03084-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification and
order any and all such relief as is deemed.

The Court said, "On her own behalf and on behalf of a putative
class, Plaintiff Palmer claims that Defendant KCI called her
cellular telephone number using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (ATDS) or a prerecorded voice without her consent. The
Plaintiff alleges that KCI was "calling the wrong person" in early
2019. She seeks to represent a class of unintended call recipients
(i.e., wrong number calls) who received a call from KCI by using an
ATDS or prerecorded voice within four years from filing the
Complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to treat identically anyone whose
order notes with KCI reflect eight keywords, like "wrong number"
and "incorrect phone." This, however, simply breaks down into
further individualized analysis to determine whether -- in context
-- these notes actually indicate a wrong number call or a call made
to someone other than the subscriber. Plaintiff’s "ctrl+f"
analysis of the class data is a poor proxy for an actual
methodology to identify putative class members, which was never
proffered."

KCI manufactures, sells, and markets therapeutic specialty support
surfaces and medical devices.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ys1W9E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Defendant KCI USA, Inc., are:

          Eric Larson Zalud, Esq.
          Thomas O. Crist, Esq.
          David M. Krueger, Esq.
          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          Laura E. Kogan, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 2300
          Cleveland, Ohio 44114
          Telephone: (216) 363-4500
          Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
          E-mail: ezalud@beneschlaw.com
                  tcrist@beneschlaw.com
                  dkrueger@beneschlaw.com
                  meisen@beneschlaw.com
                  lkogan@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Knickrehm, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Brown, Esq.
          WALENTINE O'TOOLE, LLP
          11240 Davenport Street
          P.O. Box 540125
          Omaha, NE 68154-0125
          Telephone: (402) 330-6300
          Facsimile: (402) 330-6303
          E-mail; cknickrehm@walentineotoole.com
                  jbrown@walentineotoole.com

KFORCE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01375-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant to seek monetary relief as
a result of its alleged systemic pattern of wage and hour that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint asserting that the Defendant
misclassified him and other similarly situated aggrieved employees
as exempt from overtime. The Defendant allegedly did not count all
off-the-clock work during meal periods in which the Defendant
required them to perform duties in their total hours worked. Also,
the Defendant failed to include commissions and other
non-discretionary performance-based pay in their regular rate of
pay when calculating their overtime pay. As a result, despite
working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees were not paid accurate
overtime compensation at the federally mandated overtime for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff says.

Kforce, Inc. operates a staffing and recruiting business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Annaliz Loera, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda St., Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Tel: (213) 444-1973
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                  Annaliz@lebelaw.com


LABORATORY CORP: Anderson Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Filing Date
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, MARY
CARTER, TENA DAVIDSON, ROBERT HUFFSTUTLER, RAMZI KHAZEN, CHAIM
MARCUS, LILY MARTYN, JONAH MCCAY, HOLDEN SHERIFF, VICTORIA SMITH,
MICHELLE SULLIVAN, SHONTELLE THOMAS, JOSEPH WATSON, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:17-cv-193-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extendng the time by which to file the class
certification.

The Plaintiffs respectfully request a 21-day extension of the date
by which to file their class certification, currently due to be
filed on August 5, 2021.

On June 28, 2021, this Court entered an order granting in part
Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents, requiring
Defendant Labcorp to produce the additional documents within 30
days. Labcorp waited until the evening of 28th day after entry of
that Order (July 26, 2021 at 9:08 P.M.) to produce that discovery.

That production consisted of approximately 900 pages of agreements
and negotiated fee schedules, the redacted PAMA data and other
documents. Moreover, they have not had an opportunity to review the
PAMA data with their experts, even in redacted form. In its Order
on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery, the Court noted the
"relevance and importance" of this information, the Plaintiffs
said.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ioMy8k at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Sasser, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          P.O. Box 33550
          Raleigh, NC 27636
          Telephone: (919) 865-7000
          Facsimile: (919) 865-7010
          E-mail: jon.sasser@elliswinters.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
          Telephone: (212) 759-4620
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2094

MCCORMICK TRUCKING: Underpays Dispatchers & Schedulers, Keator Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE KEATOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCCORMICK TRUCKING, INC., TRACIE MCCORMICK,
INC., ACTION TRAILER SERVICES, INC., ROBERT MCCORMICK, and TRACIE
MCCORMICK, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00605 (M.D. Tenn., August
4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated dispatchers and schedulers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

Ms. Keator worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher and scheduler
from January 2020 until June 2021.

McCormick Trucking, Inc. is an operator of a dedicated mail hauler
for the U.S. Postal Service, with its headquarters located in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Tracie McCormick, Inc. is an operator of a dedicated mail hauler
for the U.S. Postal Service, with its headquarters located in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Action Trailer Services, Inc. is an operator of a dedicated mail
hauler for the U.S. Postal Service, with its headquarters located
in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Curt M. Masker, Esq.
         THE MASKER FIRM
         810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314
         Nashville, TN 37228
         Telephone: (615) 823-1737
         Facsimile: (615) 821-0632
         E-mail: curt@maskerfirm.com

MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Woolwine Sues Over Opioid Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Woolwine, individually and as the next friend of minor
E.G.W., and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. McKinsey and Company, Inc., McKinsey and Company, Inc. United
States, Mckinsey and Company, Inc., Washington, D.C., Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-00418 (S.D. W.V., July 23, 2021), seeks injunctive
relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages and any other
relief resulting from negligence and seeks neo-natal medical care,
additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other
treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome afflicted newborns, and
counseling and rehabilitation services after birth and into the
future.

The complaint alleges that McKinsey dispensed advice to Johnson &
Johnson, Purdue, Endo, Amerisource Bergen, among others, that drove
the opioid crisis. McKinsey provided a wide array of consultancy
services to certain manufacturers and distributors working together
to alter the standard care for patients experiencing pain.

The complaint asserts that Minor E.G.W. was born dependent on
opioids. Plaintiff's birth mother became addicted to the products
manufactured by McKinsey's client Endo which was prescribed it to
her. Prenatal exposure to opioids injured her child, minor E.G.W.,
causing severe withdrawal symptoms, and lasting developmental
impacts, adds the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. New, Esq.
      NEW, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES
      430 Harper Park Dr.
      Beckley, WV 25801
      Tel: (304) 250-6017
      Fax: (304) 250-6012
      Email: steve@newlawoffice.com

             - and -

      Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
      David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
      Melissa Ellsworth, Esq.
      Sarah Surber, Esq.
      THOMPSON BARNEY
      2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
      Charleston, WV 25311
      Telephone: (304) 343-4401
      Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
      Email: kwthompsonwv@thompsonbarneylaw.com
             drbarneywv@gmail.com
             mellsworth@thompsonbarneylaw.com
             ssurber@thompsonbarneylaw.com

             - and -

      Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
      Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
      Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
      Victor Cobb, Esq.
      THE COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC
      1525 Religious Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 399-0009
      Email: cbrustowicz@clfnola.com
             bcooper@clfnola.com
             swussow@clfnola.com
             vcobb@clfnola.com

             - and -

      Donald Creadore, Esq., Esq.
      CREADORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      450 Seventh Ave., Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 355-7200
      Email: Donald@creadorelawfirm.com

             - and -

      James F. Clayborne, Esq.
      CLAYBORNE, SABO & WAGNER, LLP
      525 West Main Street, Suite 105
      Belleville, IL 62220
      Telephone: (618) 239-0187
      Facsimile: (618) 416-7556
      Email: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com


MRS BPO: Zamora FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carolina C. Zamora, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., JOHN DOES 1 TO 10,
Case No. ESX-L-005031-21 was removed from the New Jersey Superior
Court, Law Div - Essex County to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on August 5, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-14619 to the
proceeding.

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

MRS BPO, LLC -- https://mrsbpo.com/ -- is a full service accounts
receivable management firm based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aleksander P. Powietrzynski, Esq.
          LOCKS LORD LLP
          75 South Broadway, Ste. 443
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (212) 532-2700
          Fax: (212) 922-9484
          Email: alex@winstonandwinston.com


NARS COSMETICS: Ferguson BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRITTANY FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NARS COSMETICS, Case No.
2021L000114, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County,
Illinois, Law Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on August 3, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03181-SEM-TSH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting and
storing the facial geometry scans of the Plaintiff and Class
members 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.

NARS Cosmetics is a French cosmetics and skin care company based 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 –

         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

                 - and –

         Andrew H. Schrag, 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

NATION COMPANY: Meahl Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nation Company
LLC. The case is styled as D. Darren Meahl, individually and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Nation
Company LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00670 (W.D. Mich., August 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Nation -- https://www.thenation.com/ -- is the oldest
continuously published weekly magazine in the United States,
covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and
analysis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Leone Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Leone, on behalf of himself and all others
so similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper,
HSBC Bank USA National Association as Trustee for Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series MLMI 2005-A10, Case No.
WC2019-0001 was removed from the Washington County Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
August 5, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00323 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Real Property: Foreclosure.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
          LOCKS LORD LLP
          2800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: (401) 274-9200
          Fax: (401) 276-6611
          Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com


NAVY FEDERAL: $171.5K Cy Pres Award to Society in Lloyd Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNA LLOYD and JAMIE PLEMONS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01280-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants the parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Cy Pres Distribution.

The Plaintiffs filed the action alleging that Navy Federal
improperly assessed and collected Optional Overdraft Protection
Fees ("OOPS Fees") from them and a putative class of Navy Federal
accountholders on certain debit card transactions.

The parties ultimately reached a settlement, which establishes, in
relevant part, that after two rounds of distribution, any remaining
settlement funds will be distributed to the cy pres recipient.
They were tasked with proposing a recipient that "worked to promote
financial literacy, including for members of the military or
veterans."  The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Oct. 22, 2018, and final approval on May 28, 2019.

In the instant Joint Motion, the parties seek the Court's approval
to distribute the residual settlement funds to the Navy-Marine
Corps Relief Society.  They state that, compliant with the
Settlement Agreement, a first distribution of settlement funds was
either credited to the accounts of Settlement Class Members who
still maintained an account with Navy Federal, or checks were
mailed to former accountholders.  A second distribution was
conducted in the same manner one year later using the remaining
funds.  After these two distributions, $171,509.22 remains in the
settlement fund, which the parties seek to distribute to the
aforementioned cy pres beneficiary.

Judge Bashant finds the proposed cy pres remedy accounts for the
nature of the lawsuit.  She says, the claims in the action were
breach of contract and conversion stemming from "the interpretation
of consumer account documents and the accrual of fees when accounts
are overdrawn."  Thus, the case touches on financial literacy.  The
proposed cy pres recipient aligns with this interest.  The Society
works to provide military members and their families with
information and counseling to improve their financial literacy.

Judge Bashant also finds that the interests of silent class members
would be advanced by distributing cy pres funds to the Society. She
states, by helping individuals better understand the financial
system and obtain the personal skills necessary to take
responsibility of their finances, the Society makes it more likely
that class members and, more broadly, any consumers of Navy Federal
will be familiar with consumer account documents, such as the one
at issue in the case, and avoid the fees and penalties imposed on
personal accounts outlined in these disclosures.

Having considered the parties' Joint Motion and finding the
proposed cy pres beneficiary appropriate, Judge Bashant grants the
Joint Motion.  The Settlement Administrator is ordered to
distribute the remaining balance of the $171,509.22 in Settlement
funds as a cy pres award to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/44j5hedb from Leagle.com.


NCAA: Weldon Seeks Damages for Football-Related Health Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Weldon and Rashawn Underdue, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02101 (S.D.
Ind., July 23, 2021), seeks economic, monetary, actual,
consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present
and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost
time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Joshua Weldon played football at Hartwick from 1996 to 1998, as an
offensive lineman while Rashawn Underdue played from 1994 to 1995,
as a linebacker. They suffered from numerous concussions, as well
as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. Weldon and Underdue now suffer from issues including, but
not limited to, short-term memory loss, impulsive behavior/poor
inhibition, depression or suicidal thoughts, emotional instability,
motor impairment, and post-concussion onset of ADHD.

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

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


NEW YORK, NY: Discusses Incarceration Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
40-year-old man was held 291 days past his prison release date
because state officials couldn't find housing to treat his bipolar
and depressive disorders, says a new lawsuit -- and he was one of
an unknown number of mentally ill New York prisoners in the same
situation.

The man, who sued in Manhattan Federal Court under the initials
A.D., says he should have been released on parole Nov. 24, 2017 for
criminal sale of a controlled substance. Instead, he walked out of
Fishkill Correctional Facility in Sept. 10, 2018.

"It definitely came as a surprise and at such a bad time. I had
family awaiting my arrival. And a son that was waiting for me,"
A.D. told the Daily News in an interview. "I was at a loss for
words. I did not know it could be done. I had served my time. It
was a real shocker to me."

A.D. recalled packing up his belongings in prison and being
processed for release, eagerly awaiting the chance to get his life
on track.

But one day before his release date, prison staff asked him to sign
a paper saying he would remain in custody, A.D. recalled. He was
supposed to be sent to a residential treatment facility, but the
state couldn't find "appropriate community-based mental health
housing," the suit states.

"I'm just lost in the system," A.D. recalled thinking.

A.D. said officials gave several reasons why he was still behind
bars. He said he was told his dose of the antipsychotic Seroquel
was too high to be released. Officials rejected A.D.'s proposals he
move into friends' homes, he said.

"They were saying I wasn't stable to go into a shelter, which was
not valid, because I had already been in a shelter. I was homeless
for two years before I got arrested . . . I was on medication --
the same meds I was on," he said.

He'd stewed behind bars a whopping 210 days past the maximum
sentence allowed for selling cocaine, the suit states.

He'd stewed behind bars a whopping 210 days past the maximum
sentence allowed for selling cocaine, the suit states.

Legal Aid Society lawyers in 2019 filed a class-action lawsuit in
Manhattan Federal Court against the state on behalf of prisoners
like A.D. Filings in the case say the Legal Aid lawyers and the
state are in settlement talks.

In the suit, Legal Aid accuses the state of holding prisoners "past
their release dates—including the end of their prison sentences,
approved conditional release dates, and open dates for parole"
because New York lacks adequate "community-based mental health
housing programs" to help them.

By holding mentally ill prisoners past their release dates, Legal
Aid says, the state is "undermining the most basic principle
undergirding the criminal justice system: that a criminal sentence,
once imposed by a judge, means what it says."

A spokesman for the state prison system did not respond to a
question about how many inmates are being held past their release
dates. The agency does not comment on pending litigation.

A spokesman for the State Office of Mental Health said it would
respond to A.D.'s allegations in a public court filing.

Officials eventually released A.D. into a sober living facility in
his hometown of Freeport, L.I. The adjustment hasn't been easy.

"The first six months I came back I didn't wanna work, or be
social, or even leave the house because of the fear of catching
another crime. I don't want to go back in (to prison) out of the
fear of never coming back. Because that is how it felt: like I was
just going to get lost," A.D. said. "I'm still trying to integrate
socially. It's just really a permanent scar from this." [GN]

NIANTIC INC: Faces Reeves Suit Over Video Game In-App Purchases
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARRETT REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIANTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-05883 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2021) is an action alleging
deceptive and misleading trade practices by the Defendant in
marketing and selling in-game items and in-game currency for its
popular online video game, Pokemon Go (hereinafter, "Pokemon").

According to the complaint, Niantic is a provider of socially
connected video games on the Internet. Niantic allows for free
downloads of video game applications including Pokemon, i.e. video
game software that users download on different computing device
platforms, including iOS and Android. Users running Pokemon on
their devices connect to Niantic's software servers and other users
connected through the Internet together to create a simulation of
the real-world in the digital realm, i.e., cyberworld. Niantic
provides a video game service, i.e., an entertainment or
recreational service through the Internet.

Niantic derives most of its Pokemon-related revenue through the
sale of "PokeCoins" or "PokeCoins," Pokemon's in-game currency. The
Defendant induces players into making more purchases by making the
purchase process incredibly easy. Once a player enters and saves a
payment method, that player can purchase PokeCoins at any time
almost instantly. In practice, this means minors whose parents
enter and save their credit cards into a Pokemon account can use
their parents' credit cards to make an endless number of purchases.
The ease of purchase combined with the constant cycle of
introducing new items and time-sensitive "events" for results in
more purchases, says the suit.

The free-to-play model has broadened Pokemon's customer base by
allowing players, including minors, to start playing the game
without requiring payment or parental consent. However, while
Pokemon can be played without making in-game purchases, the social
nature of the game exacerbates the need for players, especially
impressionable minors, to make in-game purchases. Players are left
with little choice but to make in-game purchases in order to
meaningfully enjoy the game and avoid lack of progression, the suit
alleges.

Niantic, Inc., doing business as Niantic Labs, designs and develops
software solutions. The Company offers wide range of video games.
Niantic Labs serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               -and-

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

NORTHSTART PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Seo Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUSTIN C. SEO, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC, REBECCA METZGER, and NEIL METZGER, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00886 (E.D. Va., August 2, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
workers, arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a cook beginning in
early March 2019 until the end of January 2020.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff routinely worked
more than 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him his lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate for
all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, the
Plaintiff was only paid straight time without overtime. Allegedly,
the Defendants deliberately misreported the Plaintiff's earnings in
order to conceal his hours. Additionally, the Defendants failed to
keep accurate records of the Plaintiff's hours worked, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover all unpaid overtime
wages and past wages from the Defendants, plus an equal amount in
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney's fees, litigation costs, and other relief that the Court
deems appropriate.

Northstar Property Management Group, LLC operates sushi restaurant
owned by Rebecca Metzger and Neil Metzger. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540A Little River Turnpike
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Tel: (703) 256-1800
          Fax: (703) 991-6116
          E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com

NURTURE INC: Philippe Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is styled as Myjorie Philippe, Alyssa Rose, Vanessa Inoa,
Cassie Isza Dawn Johnson, Helen Howard, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Nurture, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06632-UA (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Nurture, Inc. doing business as Happy Family --
https://www.happyfamilyorganics.com/ -- is an organic baby and
toddler food company in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max Ephraim Rodriguez, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP - New York, NY
          60 Broad St., Fl. 24
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 290-7509
          Email: max@pollockcohen.com


NYU LANGONE: Faces Dorson Suit Over X-ray Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA DORSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. NYU LANGONE
HOSPITAL-BROOKLYN, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04286 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 30, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an x-ray technician
at the Defendant's hospital and medical services and care facility
from approximately March 2018 through June 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, she and other similarly situated non-managerial
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff regularly worked 35 to 112 hours a week, particularly
during the coronavirus pandemic. However, the Defendant did not pay
her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her
contractually agreed-upon regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess of 40. In addition, the Defendant allegedly made unlawful
deductions from the Plaintiff's salary without her written or
verbal consent. The Defendant also did not pay her an additional
spread-of-hours pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate for each
day her shift exceeded 10 hours. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
provide her with wage statement and with wage notice of her rate of
pay, and to post notices or other means regarding the Plaintiff's
wage as required by NYLL, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, spread of
hours pay, as well as liquidated damages and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

NYU Langone Hospital-Brooklyn operates a hospital. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

OATLY GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of September 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Oatly Group AB ("Oatly" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:OTLY) and reminds investors of the September
24, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Oatly stock
or options between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021 and would like to
discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also
click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/OTLY.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that Oatly:
(1) overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure,
and market share financial metrics; (2) overstated its
sustainability practices and impact; (3) exaggerated its growth in
China; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements
about its operations, business, and prospects were misleading
during the Class Period.

Specifically, on July 14, 2021, before the market opened, short
seller Spruce Point issued a Report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier
Investment." The 124-page Report detailed a wide array of
misconduct and misstatements by Oatly, including that it has
wrongfully overstated: a number of its financial metrics including
revenue, gross margin, capital expenditures, and market share; its
sustainability practices and impact; and its growth story in China,
among other things. The Report was based on a review of Oatly's
financial and other statements as well as interviews with former
employees and other investigative work like site visits.

According to the Report, Oatly's revenue metrics are "insufficient
and not what we expect from a company with a 20-year operational
history." For example, the Registration Statement did not disclose
new sales for new products over the previous 36 months. In
addition, "[d]iscounts, rebates and coupons are deducted from gross
to reported net revenues. Oatly doesn't provide a bridge so
investors can gauge promotional activity[.]"

As to sales, the Report points out that, "Oatly's 2018 U.S. sales
can't be reconciled and vary by 100%. Both Nielsen and a Swedish
magazine reported $6m of sales in 2018, whereas Oatly [] disclosed
$12m of sales in [the] [I]nvestor [P]resentation."

On this and other similar news, the price of Oatly ADSs fell 2.8%,
closing at $20.54, down from its previous close of $21.13, a drop
of 2.8%.

On July 15, 2021, there was more coverage of the Report by news
outlets. For example, at 10:15 a.m., Fortune published an article
entitled, "Wild Oats? Inside Spruce Point's 124-Page Attack
Alleging Mismanagement And False Claims At Oatly." Fortune
described the Report as "the results of an extensive investigation
into Oatly[.]"

On this news, the price of Oatly ADSs fell another 5.16% on July
15, closing at $19.48 per ADS. Together with the July 14 drop, this
was a two-day decline of 8.8%, with both days experiencing
unusually high trading volume.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Oatly's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ONDAS HOLDINGS: Wilhelm Sues Over American Robotics Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wilhelm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ondas Holdings Inc., Eric A. Brock, Stewart
G. Kantor, Thomas V. Bushey, Richard M. Cohen, Derek Reisfield,
Randall P. Seidl, Richard H. Silverman and Jaspreet Sood,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05663 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2021), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
American Robotics, Inc. by Ondas Holdings Inc. through Ondas'
subsidiaries Drone Merger Sub I Inc. and Drone Merger Sub II Inc.,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Ondas will acquire
American Robotics in exchange for a cash consideration in an amount
equal to $7,500,000, less certain transaction expenses and
indebtedness of American Robotics, 6,750,000 validly issued, fully
paid and non-assessable shares of the Ondas' common stock, less
certain shares which may be paid as transaction expenses, warrants,
exercisable for 1,875,000 shares of Ondas' common stock and any
cash released to American Robotics stockholders from a PPP Loan
Escrow Amount and from Ondas Stockholders' Representative Expense
Fund.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed with regards
the transaction fails to provide stockholders with material
information or provides them with materially misleading information
concerning financial projections of Ondas' financial advisor,
National Securities Corp., and the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by National Securities Corp. and the background of the
transaction.

Ondas was formerly a reseller of event tickets. In 2018, it
consummated a reverse acquisition transaction to acquire a wireless
broadband technology company, Ondas Networks, and changed its name
to Ondas Holdings Inc. Ondas' common stock trades on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "ONDS." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348.
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

ONEPLUS USA: Smartphones Contain Secret Setting, Wade Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONEPLUS USA CORP. and ONEPLUS, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-05811 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2021) is a class action suit
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against
the Defendants for the design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale
of the OnePlus 9 and OnePlus 9 Pro smartphones (the Devices).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Devices at issue contain a "Secret
Setting" that restricts -- or "throttles" -- access to the Devices'
processing power and other resources. Specifically, benchmark
applications are set to receive full access to the Devices'
resources, so that the Devices will appear to run at full power
under test conditions, but real-world applications will receive
throttled and reduced performance. This throttling not only applies
to "a handful of apps, but applies to pretty much everything that
has any level of popularity in the Play Store, including the whole
of Google's app suite, all of Microsoft's Office apps, all popular
social media apps, and any popular browser such as Firefox, Samsung
Internet, or Microsoft Edge." As such, there exists "a large
disconnect between the performance that's exhibited in the most
popular applications out there and the experience that users will
be having within the most popular applications on the market," says
the suit.

According to the complaint, since 2013, the Defendants have made
tremendous strides to become a globally-recognized smartphone brand
with a "cult-like following" comparable to the likes of Apple and
Samsung. Once limited to being an online-only and invite-only
brand, Defendants have quickly expanded their offerings and have
released an average of at least two new cellular devices per year.
Defendants' early offerings were dubbed "flagship killers" because
of their combination of design, powerful specifications, fast and
lean software, and a low price.

As a part of the March 23, 2021 launch for the OnePlus 9 and 9 Pro
smartphones, the company rebranded, informing customers that "[w]e
are fueled by the words 'Never Settle,' disrupting the status quo
to bring premium devices to North America that is in reach of more
consumers." To this effect, Defendants claim on their website that:
"We continue to push the boundaries of what's possible. Pulling the
industry forward since our founding, we will Never Settle in
delivering innovative capabilities to improve consumers lives." In
doing so, Defendants claim that they are "community driven" because
they "work[] with our OnePlus community members, we listen to what
you want and need, and develop products built for you, by you."

However, despite these promises, Defendants have allegedly engaged
in secretly "throttling" the performance of apps on their phones
(hereafter, "the Defect"). That is, Defendants have programmed
their OnePlus 9 and OnePlus 9 Pro smartphones to limit access to
their fastest processing cores for a number of popular
applications, causing slowdown in typical workloads such as web
browsing and gaming. According to one study, Defendants give
"benchmark applications" full performance -- so that the phones
appear to run at full speed when tested and measured -- while
commonly-used applications are secretly configured for
significantly reduced performance. In turn, Defendants can
advertise their Devices as achieving significant speeds and
high-level performance. But the advertised benchmark results are
useless for the user experience, as applications on OnePlus 9 and
OnePlus 9 Pro smartphones are secretly throttled by Defendants,
added the suit.

Consequently, consumers have been led to believe, based on
Defendants' representations, that the Devices are much faster and
powerful than they perform. To further this deception, Defendants
maintain a Secret Setting that allows them to choose which
applications receive priority. This means that in light of the
Defect, consumers are not getting the full advertised performance
of their phones, paying a significant price premium for
characteristics -- i.e., speed, power, and performance -- that they
are not receiving.

The Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants individually and
on behalf of a Class of all other similar situated purchasers of
the OnePlus 9 and 9 Pro for: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act; (2) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act;
(3) violation of California's Unfair Competition; (4) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; and (5) violation of California
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

Plaintiff Eric Wade is, and at all times relevant to this action
has been, a citizen of California and a resident of San Jose. In
June 2021, Plaintiff Wade purchased his OnePlus 9 Pro in San Jose,
California directly from Defendants at their online store,
www.oneplus.com.

As a result of Defendants' alleged actions, Plaintiff did not
receive the benefit of his bargain and was injured as a result. If
Plaintiff had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in
which Defendants would conceal this Defect, Plaintiff would not
have purchased his Device, or would have paid substantially less.

The Defendants have established themselves as dominant participants
in the U.S. smartphone market. In 2020, OnePlus was the only major
brand to grow year-on-year, seeing sell-through / sales growth of
163% compared to 2019. Their competitors, Apple and Samsung, on the
other hand, saw year-on-year declines of 3% and 5%, respectively.
According to one expert, "[t]he main reason that the OnePlus brand
has grown as much as it has is that it doesn't cut corners. Unlike
other mobile providers they aren't expecting consumers to pay more
for less -- they relay their cheaper production costs onto the
consumer whilst delivering great quality."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  slitteral@bursor.com

PG&E CORP: Dismissal of PSPS Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the class
action suit involving Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), is
pending.

On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility).

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.

The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.

The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations.

On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Utility's
motion to dismiss this class action because the plaintiff's class
action claims are preempted as a matter of law by the CPUC code. On
April 3, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the
action without leave to amend.

The plaintiff appealed the decision dismissing the complaint to the
District Court. On March 26, 2021, the District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of this action, and the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellant filed his opening brief on June 25, 2021.

A former executive director of the CPUC filed an amicus brief on
July 2, 2021, asking the Ninth Circuit to reverse the decision of
the District Court and to remand the case for further proceedings.
The answering brief of PG&E Corporation and the Utility is due by
August 25, 2021.

The appellants' reply brief is due 21 days after the answering
brief is filed.

The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this
proceeding.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: PERA Objection to Stay York County Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico ("PERA") objection to the
notice of intent to stay the case entitled York County on behalf of
the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York
County Action"), is pending.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current
and former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.

The complaints asserted claims under section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated
both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation.

The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico ("PERA") as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After
the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to add
allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings
were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company (the Utility).

On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").

The complaint names as defendants certain then-current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor
the Utility is named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures.

The complaint asserts claims under section 11 and section 15 of the
Securities Act, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys'
fees and other costs, and injunctive relief.

On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and former directors, and the
underwriters.

On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.

On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are under submission with the District Court. The
securities actions have been enjoined as to PG&E Corporation and
the Utility pursuant to the Plan with such claims to be resolved by
the Bankruptcy Court as part of the claims reconciliation process
in the Chapter 11 Cases.

On April 29, 2021, the District Court issued a notice of intent to
stay this action pending conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings.


PERA filed objections to the notice of intent to stay on May 28,
2021. PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a response to PERA's
objections on June 10, 2021, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed a response to PERA's objections on June 11, 2021,
and PERA filed a sur-response on June 21, 2021.

The District Court has not taken further action with respect to its
notice of intent to stay.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Vataj Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in Vataj v. Johnson et al., is scheduled for
September 16, 2021.

On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al.

The complaint named as defendants a then-current director and
certain then-current and former officers of PG&E Corporation.

Neither PG&E Corporation nor Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility) was named as a defendant.

The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs (PSPS) events, that allegedly resulted in
losses and damages to holders of PG&E Corporation's securities.

The complaint asserted claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
sought unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other
costs.

On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation
appointing co-lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of the
plaintiffs' counsel.

On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims. The amended complaint added PG&E
Corporation and a current officer of PG&E Corporation as
defendants, and no longer asserts claims against certain current
and former officers of PG&E Corporation previously named in the
action.

On May 15, 2020, the officer defendants filed their motion to
dismiss in Vataj. On June 19, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2020 the officer
defendants filed their reply.

In October 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
principle, and on October 29, 2020, filed a joint notice of
settlement, informing the District Court that they have agreed in
principle to settle the matter.

On February 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the District Court, and the
District Court issued an order terminating as moot the pending
motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

Pursuant to the settlement stipulation, subject to certain
conditions: (1) PG&E Corporation will pay $10 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account within 14 days after the District
Court's preliminary approval of the settlement; and (2) plaintiffs
and the Settlement Class (as defined in the stipulation of
settlement) will release the Released Persons (as defined the
stipulation of settlement, including PG&E Corporation and the
Utility, and each of their officers, directors, as well as the
current and former officers named in both the original and amended
complaints) from all claims that have been or could have been
asserted by or on behalf of PG&E Corporation shareholders that
relate to (a) allegations that were asserted or could have been
asserted in either of the complaints in Vataj, and (b) investments
in PG&E Corporation's stock during the relevant period specified in
the stipulated settlement.

The settlement is subject to the District Court's approval and its
terms may change as a result of the settlement approval process.

The preliminary settlement approval hearing was held on March 11,
2021, where the District Court requested certain supplemental
filings, which the parties filed on March 18, 2021.

On April 20, 2021, the District Court granted the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 12, 2021, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement.

The final hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for
September 16, 2021.

PG&E said, "If the District Court approves the settlement and
enters a judgment substantially in the form requested by the
parties, the settlement will become effective when certain
conditions specified in the settlement stipulation are satisfied,
including the expiration of any right to appeal the judgment."

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PGA MAGAZINE: Green Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PGA Magazine
Publications & Marketing Group. The case is styled as Bert Green,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PGA
Magazine Publications & Marketing Group, Case No.
2:21-cv-11810-VAR-CI (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

PGA Magazine Publications & Marketing Group --
https://pgamagazine.com/ -- is a direct connection to the most
influential and important people in golf: PGA Professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Still Defends Rebolledo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
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  Philip Morris
Colombia S.A., continues to defend a purported class action suit in
Colombia entitled, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia
S.A., et al.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019, against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the company's  Platform 1
product.

Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages
on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all
Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase
price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged
addiction, and class 2 - all residents of the neighborhood where
the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure
to the alleged illegal advertising).

The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the named
plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product.)

In June 2021, the company's subsidiaries answered the amended
complaint.

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: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 2 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Piedmont
Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.

Class Period: March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in PLL:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18146&from=5

Piedmont Lithium Inc. NEWS - PLL NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Piedmont Lithium Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not,
and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all
proper and necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform
relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans;
(3) Piedmont failed to file proper applications with relevant
governmental authorities (including state and local authorities);
(4) Piedmont and its lithium business does not have "strong local
government support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Piedmont you have until September 21, 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 Piedmont 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 PLL lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

                     About Klein Law Firm

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.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Piedmont Lithium Inc. ("Piedmont") (NASDAQ: PLL)
between March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18138&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Piedmont Lithium Inc. NEWS - PLL NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) Piedmont has
not, and would not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure
all proper and necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform
relevant people and governmental authorities of its actual plans;
(3) Piedmont failed to file proper applications with relevant
governmental authorities (including state and local authorities);
(4) Piedmont and its lithium business does not have "strong local
government support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Piedmont, you have until September 21, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Piedmont securities between March
16, 2018 and July 19, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18138&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Skeels Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
John R. Skeels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Piedmont Lithium Inc., Keith D. Phillips,
Bruce Czachor and Gregory Swan, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04161,
(E.D. N.Y., July 23, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Piedmont engages in the exploration and development of resource
projects. It primarily holds a 100% interest in a lithium project
covering 2,322 acres in the North Carolina. Piedmont shares are
listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "PLL." Until December
2018, Piedmont American Depositary Shares (ADS) were listed on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "PLLL." On May 17, 2021, in
connection with Piedmont's re-domiciliation from Australia to the
United States, Piedmont's ADS holders received one share of
Piedmont common stock for each ADS. Keith D. Phillips, Bruce
Czachor and Gregory Swan are members of Piedmont's board of
directors.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose that
Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps or
timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits for the North
Carolina lithium project and that it failed to inform relevant
people and governmental authorities of its actual plans. Piedmont
failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental
authorities and its lithium business did not have strong local
government support. On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per
share over the trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per
share on July 20, 2021, damaging investors including Skeels. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLATT ELECTRIC: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platt Electric
Supply, Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Hardin,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Platt Electric Supply, Inc., an unknown
business entity; Platt Electric Supply, an unknown business entity;
Rexel Inc., an unknown business entity; Rexel USA Inc., an unknown
business entity; Case No. BCV-21-101808 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., August 5, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Platt Electric Supply -- https://www.platt.com/ -- is a distributor
of an electrical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


PLUS COMMUNICATIONS: Hester Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plus Communications
Inc. The case is styled as Ruby Hester, Stewart Murie, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plus
Communications Inc. d/b/a Charisma Media, Case No. 1:21-cv-00671
(W.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Charisma Media -- https://charismamedia.com/ -- is a Christian
multi-media company, long recognized as an innovator and known as
the leading Charismatic/Pentecostal publisher in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com



POSTAL FLEET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pair Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA PAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POSTAL FLEET SERVICES, INC.; THE STATELINE
COMPANY; VILANO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; DON DORRIS; LESLIE
DORRIS; and BREANDA DORRIS, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00759-C
(W.D. Okla., July 30, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Pair was employed by the Defendants as truck driver.

Postal Fleet Services, Inc. was founded in 2002. The Company's line
of business includes providing local trucking and storage services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Molly E. Brantley, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  meb@federmanlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Stone Sues Over Unclear Insurance Plan Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOYLE C. STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. and PRUCO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-14610-SDW-ESK
(D.N.J., August 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of
fiduciary duty under common law, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deficient
notification and identification practices, along with purposefully
unclear descriptions of benefits, to deprive individual
participants and their beneficiaries of the value of their
retirement, annuity, and insurance plans entrusted to Prudential's
care. As a result of the Defendants' alleged failure to provide
effective, actual notice, they wrongly maintain for themselves the
monies belonging to the plan's participants

Prudential Financial, Inc. is a provider of insurance, investment
management, and other financial products and services,
headquartered at 745 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey.

Pruco Life Insurance Company is an insurance company with its
principal office located at 213 Washington Street, Newark, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         John G. Balestriere, Esq.
         Roberto Cuan, Esq.
         BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
         225 Broadway, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 374-5401
         Facsimile: (212) 208-2613
         E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com
                 roberto.cuan@balestrierefariello.com

QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2021, that the company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated class action suit
filed by purported stockholders remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with certain allegations that the company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought unspecified damages,
interest, fees and costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief.

On September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 18, 2019, the court denied
the company's motion to dismiss.

On January 15, 2020, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The court has not yet ruled on the company's motion.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.

QUALCOMM INC: Class Certification of Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2021, that the U.S. Court Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal
regarding the grant of class certification motion.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.

On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the
plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company violated
California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by,
among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents
to the company's competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of
its baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license
the company's entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive
deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging
unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with the company's
commitments to standard setting organizations.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that we be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct.

On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On November 10, 2017, the court denied the company's motion, except
to the extent that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the court granted that motion on September 27,
2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit granted the company's permission to appeal the
court's class certification order. On January 24, 2019, the court
stayed the case pending the company's appeal.

On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class
certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Underway in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2021, that the company continues to
defend consumer class action lawsuits in Canada.

Since November 2017, several other consumer class action complaints
have been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
and the Quebec Superior Court), Israel (in the Haifa District
Court) and the United Kingdom (in the Competition Appeal Tribunal),
each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones
and other cellular devices, alleging violations of certain of those
countries' competition and consumer protection laws.

The claims in these complaints are similar to those in the U.S.
consumer class action complaints.

The complaints seek damages.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Dismissal of Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2021, that the appeal in the order
of dismissal in the securities class action suit entitled, In re
Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation, is pending.

On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of us in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and two of its then current officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose
that the company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On January 22, 2019, the court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.

On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, and on March 10, 2020, the court granted
its motion.

On May 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
and on October 8, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice.

On November 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

No hearing date has been set.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


RLX TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against RLX Technology Inc. ("RLX"
or the "Company") (NYSE:RLX) and reminds investors of the August 9,
2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in RLX American
Depository Shares ("ADS") pursuant and/or traceable to RLX's
January 2021 IPO registration statement and related prospectus (the
"IPO" or the "Offering") and would like to discuss your legal
rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at
877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here
for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/RLX.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by misstating and
omitting facts in its offering documents related to its exposure to
the Chinese government's campaign to create a national standard for
e-cigarettes that would bring them in line with traditional tobacco
products such as cigarettes. Further, the Company's financials were
not as strong as the offering documents projected and were not
indicative of future performance.

Specifically, when draft regulations were posted by the Ministry of
Industry and Information Technology, before the market opened on or
about March 22, 2021, a mere eight weeks after RLX's IPO, which
confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated
similar to traditional tobacco offerings, the price of RLX's shares
suffered an enormous decline.

Indeed, on March 22, 2021, RLX's ADS closed at $10.15 per ADS, down
nearly 48% from its previous close of $19.46 per ADS on March 19,
2021, the previous trading day.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding RLX's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT)
between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 30, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Rocket Companies class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2099.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 30, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rocket Companies' gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment, and compression in the price spread between the primary
and secondary mortgage markets; (2) Rocket Companies was engaged in
a price war and battle for market share with its primary
competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing
margins in Rocket Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (3)
the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a
result, Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to
plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021;
(4) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that
had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket Companies to
achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than remaining elevated
due to surging demand, Rocket Companies' Company-wide gain-on-sale
margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Rocket Companies' 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 Rocket Companies class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2099.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

SAGINAW, MI: App. Court Hears Arguments in Parking Tickets Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court has heard
arguments in a challenge to a Michigan city's practice of marking
tires to catch people who ignore time limits on parking.

Alison Taylor is appealing a decision that went in favor of
Saginaw. Her attorney argues that chalking tires violates the
Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

The case made headlines in 2019 when the same appeals court said
marking tires could be illegal without a warrant in some
circumstances. The court sent the lawsuit back to a federal judge
in Bay City for more work, but he eventually ruled against Taylor
again.

A different three-judge panel at the appeals court heard arguments
on July 29.

In court papers, Saginaw said it's a "novel issue" but not a
violation of the constitution.

"The city used the chalk to inform vehicle owners that that their
vehicle is subject to the time limitations as set forth by the
local ordinances," attorneys for Saginaw said.

The city said Taylor had 14 parking tickets, some issued after a
tire was marked.

Taylor's attorney, Philip Ellison, said a chalk line on a tire
might be "low tech" but it's still an illegal trespass against her
car. He wants to make the case a class-action. [GN]

SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Mosaic Health Alleges Drug Discount Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOSAIC HEALTH, INC., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC; ELI
LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, LLC; NOVO NORDISK INC.; and
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-06507
(W.D.N.Y., July 30, 2021) is an antitrust class action seeking
injunctive and compensatory relief for the safety-net hospitals and
clinics harmed by the Defendants' anti-competitive agreement.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the coordination by the
Defendants to boost their profits is at the expense of the
safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for patients who have
nowhere else to turn. Yet, instead of competing for business, they
worked together to boost their profits by coordinating to retract a
long-standing discount for safety-net hospitals and clinics. That
coordination allowed the Defendants to individually avoid
competitive pressure and prevent individual market share losses,
while restricting safety-net hospitals' abilities to deliver robust
and affordable healthcare options to patients. The horizontal
agreement was a per se violation of state and federal antitrust
laws, the Plaintiff asserts.

Allegedly, the discount that the Defendants conspired to limit was
a special discount offered to safety-net hospitals and clinics,
which purchase drugs filled by their patients at retail pharmacies.
The discount is calculated by a mathematical formula codified at
Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 256b and
is known as the 340B Drug Discount. For at least a decade, drug
companies offered the 340B Drug Discount to safety-net hospitals
and clinics, not only for on-site use but also for purchase and
distribution by retail pharmacies. Those pharmacies, typically
called contract pharmacies (Contract Pharmacies), have contracts
with safety-net providers, which allow the providers to purchase
drugs on their own accounts, discounted with the 340B Drug
Discount, to be delivered to and dispensed by the Contract
Pharmacies.

Drug companies, including the Defendants, have argued that their
provision of 340B Drug Discounts at Contract Pharmacies is
voluntary, not mandated by law. But, for at least a decade, nearly
all pharmaceutical companies, including Defendants, had offered
safety-net providers drugs at 340B Drug Discounts for dispensing at
Contract Pharmacies (Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts). And,
with all pharmaceutical competitors regularly offering Contract
Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts, patients benefitted, because
safety-net hospitals and clinics have been able to use savings from
those discounts to expand healthcare services and lower healthcare
costs for patients, added the suit.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets
pharmaceutical products. The Company was founded in 1950 and is
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Areas that Sanofi US cover
include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments,
and metabolic disorders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian M. Feldman, Esq.
          Lauren R. Mendolera, Esq.
          Samuel P. Reger, Esq.
          HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP
          Rochester, NY 14604
          Telephone: (585) 231-1201
          Facsimile: (585) 232-2152
          E-mail: bfeldman@hselaw.com
                  lmendolera@hselaw.com
                  sreger@hselaw.com

               -and-

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: BC1obes@caffertyclobes.com
                  EMeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

SIERRA NEVADA: Fischler Seeks Blind Customers' Equal Website Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIERRA NEVADA BREWING CO., d/b/a Strainge
Beast, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04371-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y., August
4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.straingebeast.com, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) images are not properly labeled, (b) frames do not have a
title, (c) button elements are empty, (d) form controls have no
label, (e) forms have fields without label elements or title
attributes, (f) webpages have markup errors, (g) headings are not
nested correctly and at least eight headings are empty, and (h)
several links on a page share the same link text but go to
different destinations.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., doing business as Strainge Beast, is a
retailer of alcoholic beverages, headquartered in Chico,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10170
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com

SIX FLAGS: Court Junks Class Suit vs SFNE
-----------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that the purported
class action suit against Six Flags New England (SFNE) has been
dismissed.

On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one
of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of
current and former employees of Six Flags New England.

The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing
employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of
unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties.

On November 12, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount, and
final approval was granted by the court on March 31, 2021, and the
case was dismissed on June 23, 2021.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that Park Management
Corp. continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated
by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.

On February 20, 2020, a complaint was filed against Park Management
Corp. in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf
of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags
Discovery Kingdom.

The complaint alleges violations of California law governing
payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks
statutory damages under federal and California law and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The claims related to wages and wage statements will be resolved
under the settlement of the April 2018 litigation above.

Six Flags said, "With respect to the remaining background check
claims, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this
litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome
is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or
range of loss cannot be made."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Weaver USERRA Suit Over Military Leaves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY WEAVER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., a Texas Corporation,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01891-RDB (D. Md., July 28, 2021) is a civil class
action brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA").

The case is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide Class of
all persons similarly situated, including current and former
employees of Southwest Airlines, Co., who were or are currently
serving in the United States Armed Services or National Guard.

During his employment with SWA, Plaintiff and the Class have taken
numerous periods of short term and long term military leave. In an
effort to save costs, in or about March 2020, and again in May
2020, SWA actively encouraged employees to take the maximum
military leave possible over the 2020 to early 2021 time periods.

SWA informed employees that military leave from March 1, 2020
through at least August 2021, will not be included as part of the
employee's five year cumulative USERRA exempt duty calculation.

On or about June 1, 2020, SWA announced a policy called the
COVID-19 Extended Emergency Time Off Program (ExTO), the terms of
which are separate from and not included in any collective
bargaining agreement (CBA).

The ExTO is a leave of absence with no employment commitments, in
which the employee receives a reduced amount of pay and full
benefits, such as sick time accrual, vacation accrual, employee
pass travel, jumpseat privileges, medical coverages, profit
sharing, perfect attendance awards, and all other active employee
benefits.

Plaintiff Weaver is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a Lieutenant Colonel in the
District of Columbia Air National Guard. The Plaintiff was
originally hired by Southwest Airlines, Co., on August 14, 2018 and
is based in Baltimore, Maryland as a Boeing 737 pilot.

The Plaintiff is a qualified employee and member of the uniformed
services as defined by 38 U.S.C. section 4303(3) and (16).

The Plaintiff does not seek any relief greater than or different
from the relief sought for the Class of which Plaintiff is a
member. The action, if successful, will enforce an important right
affecting the public interest and would confer a significant
benefit, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, on a large class of
persons. Private enforcement is necessary and places a
disproportionate financial burden on Plaintiff in relation to
Plaintiff's stake in the matter.

Southwest Airlines Co., typically referred to as Southwest, is one
of the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest
low-cost carrier airline. It is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and
has scheduled service to 121 destinations in the United States and
ten additional countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com

SPICY TOWN: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Lucius Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. SPICY TOWN, LLC d/b/a Salsa Fiesta, Case No.
1:21-cv-22608-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2021) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated suing the
Defendant for injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade County, is
sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as
defined by the ADA. The Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to
fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing.

The Plaintiff also utilizes the Internet. Plaintiff is unable to
read computer materials and/or access and comprehend Internet
website information without software specially designed for the
visually impaired. Specifically, the Plaintiff utilizes the JAWS
Screen Reader software, which is one of the most popular reader
Screen Reader Software (SRS) utilized worldwide.

The Plaintiff is also an advocate of the rights of similarly
situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of
asserting her civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and
determining whether places of public accommodation and/or their
websites are in compliance with the ADA.

The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations
implementing the ADA. The place of public accommodation that the
Defendant owns, operates, or leases is located in Miami-Dade
County.

Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant constructed,
or caused to be constructed, a website located at
https://salsafiestgrill.com. The Defendant is the owner, operator,
lessor and/or lessee of the website. This website supports, is an
extension of, is in conjunction with, is complementary and
supplemental to, the above-referenced public accommodation. This
website provides information about Defendant's public
accommodation, including information about the special sales,
goods, services, accommodations, privileges, benefits and
facilities available to patrons at physical locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 351-2014
          E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com

STABLE ROAD: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

SRAC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/stable-road-acquisition-corp-information-request-form-2?prid=18132&wire=1
OCGN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=18132&wire=1
CRMD Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18132&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC)

SRAC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 7, 2020
- July 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/stable-road-acquisition-corp-information-request-form-2?prid=18132&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. 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.

Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)

OCGN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 2, 2021
- June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=18132&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ocugen,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the information submitted to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to support an
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an
EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements about
Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ:CRMD)

CRMD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 8, 2020 -
May 13, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cormedix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18132&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CorMedix
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to
an investigational drug product, DefenCath's, manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath;
(ii) in light of the foregoing deficiencies, the Food and Drug
Administration was unlikely to approve the DefenCath new drug
application for catheter-related bloodstream infections in its
present form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

STANDARD EAST: Rotolo Seeks Tipped Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN ROTOLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD EAST VILLAGE EMPLOYER, LLC d/b/a
NARCISSA, Defendant, Case No. 519116/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 30,
2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid wages and statutory damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at the
Narcissa restaurant from approximately December 2015 through
approximately February 2018.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant unlawfully take a tip
credit to pay her and other similarly situated tipped workers
sub-minimum hourly wage. While paying them at the sub-minimum,
tip-credit wage, the Defendant required them to spend over 2 hours
or 20 percent of their work time each shift performing work that
had no customer interaction and that did not generate tips. The
Defendant also required them to attend pre-shift meetings that
often lasted up to a half hour, but they were paid at the
tip-credit rate instead of full minimum wage rate, says the
Plaintiff.

Allegedly, the Defendant did not provide them with proper
notification of the tipped minimum wage or tip credit provisions of
the NYLL or FLSA, as well as written notice that contained their
"regular hourly pay rate, overtime hourly pay rate, and the amount
of tip credit. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide them with
statutorily required accurate wage notices, and with wage
statements that complied with the NYLL,a dded the suit.

Standard East Village Employer operates Narcissa restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
          Michael C. Danna, Esq.
          Theanne Liu, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Ave., 25th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: daaron@outtengolden.com
                  mdanna@outtengolden.com
                  tliu@outtengolden.com

SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Attorney Says Special Judge's Ruling Flawed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for WV News, reports that a special judge's
decision to certify -- for a second time -- a class action
involving an October 2017 Parkersburg warehouse fire is just as
flawed as his first ruling, an attorney says in an appeal to the
West Virginia Supreme Court.

Special Judge Thomas A. Bedell, the chief circuit judge in Harrison
County, earlier this summer certified the class involving
individuals from Parkersburg, Vienna, Blennerhasset, Lubeck,
Washington and Waverly, as well as Belpre, Ohio.

Bedell in mid-2019 had OK'd the class action the first time against
Surnaik Holdings of WV LLC, the owner of the warehouse.

The attorneys for Surnaik Holdings last September filed for a
petition for writ of prohibition with the West Virginia Supreme
Court.

Last November, a 4-1 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice
Evan Jenkins vacated the certification and sent the matter back to
Bedell.

Now the Surnaik lawyers -- Ryan Donovan, Zak Ritchie and Andrew
Robey of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC -- say Bedell's latest
ruling is wrong, too.

"The same flaws that plagued the first certification persist," the
Surnaik lawyers write in their appeal. "According to the
Plaintiff's own expert, as many as 90% of the proposed class
members suffered no injury at all. Likewise, the plaintiff concedes
that neither liability nor damages can be proven through common
evidence on a class-wide basis. And the Plaintiff has no concrete
plan for even identifying who the class members are.

"In short, nothing has changed," writes Donovan and the other
Surnaik lawyers. "Plaintiff did not offer any additional evidence
or expert testimony, nor did he revise the class definition or
trial plan to account for the infirmities this Court identified the
first time around. He simply recasts the claims and arguments from
Surnaik I and hopes the Court will confuse verbosity for
substantive analysis."

The Surnaik lawyers filed their motion for writ of prohibition on
July 30. The other side likely will file a response, and then
Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC probably will file a reply
before the high court rules. [GN]

TEVA PHARMA: Appeal on Class Cert. of Ontario Teachers' Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on
the grant of class certification and appointment of class
representative in Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation, has been
denied.

California against Teva and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation").

On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an
amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019.

The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated federal securities and
common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose
pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio
and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Between August 2017 and October 2020, twenty complaints were filed
against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees,
costs and expenses.

The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation.

On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. The case is now in discovery.

Pursuant to that consolidation order, plaintiffs in several of the
"opt-out" cases filed amended complaints on May 28, 2020. On
January 22, 2021, the Court dismissed the "opt-out" plaintiffs'
claims arising from statements made prior to the five year statute
of repose, but denied Teva's motion to dismiss their claims under
Israeli laws.

Those "opt-out" plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which was
denied on March 30, 2021. On May 24, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss a
majority of the "opt-out" complaints on various other grounds.

The Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and
Class Counsel was granted on March 9, 2021, to which Teva's appeal
was denied.

Motions to approve securities class actions were also filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court in Israel with similar allegations to those
made in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit related
to Copaxone.

On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among
other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and
August 18, 2020, alleges that Teva and certain of its former
officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false
and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of
COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had caused the
submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva's donations to
bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance
to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE's commercial success
and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the above
referenced August 2020 False Claims Act complaint filed by the DOJ.
On March 26, 2021, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On May 25, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which names four additional former and current officers
as defendants.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees,
interest, and costs.

Defendants' response to the amended complaint is currently due by
August 13, 2021.

A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the
Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the
U.S. litigation, with similar allegations to those made in the
above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that more than 3,500
complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and
distribution against various Teva affiliates.

Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts.

Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL
Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have
been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.

Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were
transferred back to federal district court for additional
discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial.

Those cases are: City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No.
14-cv-04361 (N.D. Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v.
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

Other cases remain pending in various states.

In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court
cases have been transferred to a single court within their
respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva's generic opioid products.

In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various
putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal
injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all
of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding.
Furthermore, approximately 700 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.

Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure
of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing
the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs
specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged
damages.

The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic
damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and
several damages among all defendants.

On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the
State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County
Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.)
commenced with Teva and other defendants focused on the marketing
of branded opioids.

On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York (In re Opioid
Litigation, Index No. 400000/2017)) commenced, with Teva and other
defendants, focused on the marketing and distribution of opioids.
Absent resolutions, additional trials are expected to proceed in
several states in 2022.

In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the
Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter,
Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for
$85 million.

The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law
for any of the claims or allegations made.

As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the
litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a
portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded
an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the
relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount
within the range to be the most likely outcome.

Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably
estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such
opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards
Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.”

Additionally, on October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with
the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled
for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of
Ohio.

Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will provide the two
counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone
(sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone(R), with a
value of $25 million at wholesale acquisition cost and distributed
over three years to help in the care and treatment of people
suffering from addiction, and a cash payment in the amount of $20
million, which has been paid.

Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached
an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide
settlement.

This nationwide settlement was designed to provide a mechanism by
which the Company attempts to seek resolution of remaining
potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S. states and
political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other
plaintiffs) thereof. Under this nationwide settlement, Teva would
provide buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an
estimated value of up to approximately $23 billion at wholesale
acquisition cost over a ten year period. In addition, Teva would
also provide cash payments of up to $250 million over a ten year
period.

During the passage of time since then, the Company has continued to
negotiate the terms and conditions of a nationwide settlement.

On July 21, 2021, it was announced that four other defendants (not
including Teva) have reached a nationwide settlement, subject to
certain conditions, which includes payment of up to approximately
$26 billion spread over up to 18 years.

The achievement of this settlement may similarly present an
opportunity for Teva to arrive at a settlement, although there do
remain many complex financial and legal issues still outstanding,
including indemnification claims by Allergan against the Company,
arising from the acquisition of the Actavis Generics business.

The Company cannot predict if a settlement will be finalized.

The Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes.
The current provision remains a reasonable estimate of the ultimate
costs if a settlement is finalized based on the Company's most
recent offer to settle.

However, if not finalized for the entirety of the cases, a
reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined. An
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may
involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and
adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of
operations and cash flows.

Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from
the United States Attorney's office in the Western District of
Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the
manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids.

In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United
States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York for
documents related to the Company's anti-diversion policies and
procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the
Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into
manufacturers' and distributors' monitoring programs and reporting
under the Controlled Substances Act.

In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State
Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an
industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on
New York health insurance premiums.

This was followed by a Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing
filed by the NYDFS, although no hearing date is currently set.

Currently, Teva cannot predict how a nationwide settlement (if
finalized) will affect these investigations and administrative
actions.

In addition, a number of state attorneys general, including a
coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into
sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with
respect to opioids.

Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the
multistate group.

Teva is cooperating with these ongoing investigations and cannot
predict their outcome at this time.

In addition, several jurisdictions and consumers in Canada have
initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as
those in the United States. The cases in Canada may be consolidated
and are in their early stages.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


TOO FACED: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Too Faced Cosmetics,
LLC. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Too
Faced Cosmetics, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06628 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5,
2021).

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

Too Faced Cosmetics, LLC -- https://www.toofaced.com/ --
manufactures and distributes cosmetics products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANS UNION LLC: Simons Sues Over Misleading FICO Credit Score
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SIMONS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00097-AWA-LRL (E.D. Val., July 30, 2021) alleges violation
of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant used its
industry position as one of the "Big 3" credit reporting agencies
to market a meaningless and fraudulent product - its idiosyncratic
"Vantage Score" to consumers who believe they are purchasing an
actual FICO credit score and do not learn otherwise until their
purchase is complete.

Allegedly, Vantage Score is not a publicly recognized credit score.
Very few institutional creditors use it. And it was not developed
in the manner that the actual score - FICO - was developed, says
the suit.

Trans Union LLC operates as global information and insights
company. The Company offers various credit monitoring products, and
risk management solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com


TRANSUNION LLC: Michael Best Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. Benson, Esq., of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that class action practitioners and
the companies who are defendants in class action litigation have
been vexed by a lack of clarity over which plaintiffs have Article
III standing to bring such lawsuits. In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
a 5-4 majority of the SCOTUS plainly concluded that if a plaintiff
has not suffered a real, concrete injury, they have no Article III
standing to sue.

The Court in Ramirez, a class action alleging injuries to
individuals under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, held that 6,332 of
8,185 class members lacked standing and thus had no viable claim
that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the
accuracy of their credit files. The Court further held that all of
the class members, save for Ramirez himself, lacked standing on
their other claims related to formatting defects in mailings sent
to them by TransUnion. Significantly, the majority found that even
in the context of an alleged statutory violation of the law,
Article III standing still requires a concrete injury. And the
majority rejected the notion that the risk of a future violation or
harm is sufficient to constitute standing as well.

Much has been written already about the potential impact of the
Ramirez decision on class action practice. In a recent article in
Law360, two lawyers from Snell & Wilmer claimed "Ramirez represents
a constitutionalism that features a paradoxically muscular judicial
role presented to the reader as a paradigmatically modest one." I
think that says it all . . .

By a 5-4 vote, the court said Congress overstepped its powers by
authorizing consumers to sue under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
when credit bureaus fail to use reasonable procedures to maintain
accurate information, but don't disseminate erroneous reports to
third parties. "No concrete harm, no standing" to sue, Justice
Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court in its decision in TransUnion
LLC v. Ramirez. [GN]

TREADMAXX TIRE: Powell Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MONDRE POWELL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TREADMAXX TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03062-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 29, 2021) is a collective action
for unpaid overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In this collective action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees 1.5 times their
regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per
workweek.

The proposed class that Plaintiff seeks to represent, and on behalf
of whom Plaintiff files this collective action, consists of all
individuals employed by Defendant as "Drivers" at any of
Defendant's warehouses located within the United States at any time
within three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

Plaintiff Powell worked for Defendant as a driver within the three
years preceding the filing of this Complaint.

Treadmaxx is located in Ellenwood, Georgia, and is part of the
automotive parts, accessories, and tire stores industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
          E-mail: dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
                  jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

UBIQUITI INC: Faces Breach Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Russell Lee, writing for Inner City Press, reports that
Ubiquiti is in the "high capacity Internet access" market. A
putative class action has been filed against it in the wake of
March 30, 2021 article exposing a breach.  

On July 30, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York Judge Denise L. Cote held a proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.

Judge Cote inquired into prospective lead plaintiffs.

She deemed Irit Lukomski to be lead plaintiff, represented by The
Rosen Law Firm of 275 Madison Avenue.

The case is Molder v. Ubiquiti Inc. et al., 21-cv-4520 (Cote) [GN]




USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Faces Fusilier Contract Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Waste-Management
Resources, LLC. The case is captioned as Fusilier et al v. USA
Waste-Management Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06257-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues and is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

WM is an American waste management company offering a wide range of
services including solid waste and recyclable materials collection
services for residential, industrial, municipal and commercial
customers in 48 states. WM and its 45,000 employees serve over 20
million residential customers and over 2 million commercial
customers.[BN]

Plaintiffs Mary J. Fusilier, Andrew Kantack, Miguel Montelongo,
Gerald Davis, and Clifford Harris, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

VENTURA COUNTY: Faces White Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ventura County Credit
Union, et al. The case is captioned as David White v. Ventura
County Credit Union et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05960-DSF-GJS (C.D.
Cal., July 22, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from alleged banking violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer.

The Defendants include Ventura County Credit Union Defendant andv
Does 1 through 100, inclusive.

Ventura County Credit Union operates as a financial
cooperative.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com

VISA INC: Musgrave Joins Legal Action Over Alleged Interchange Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry O'Halloran, writing for The Irish Times, reports that
SuperValu and Centra franchise owner Musgrave is joining a legal
action seeking compensation from Visa and Mastercard for charging
fees in breach of competition laws.

British courts ruled last year that so-called interchange fees
imposed by Visa and Mastercard on retailers for every card
transaction were a breach of both EU and UK competition laws.

Musgrave has told its retail franchise partners that it is joining
a legal action seeking compensation from the two card companies for
the fees, following the precedent set by the original case, which
was taken by British chain Sainsbury's and others.

Several retail groups are taking the claim in the British courts.
Law firm Stephenson Harwood and consultants CMS Payments
Intelligence (CMSPI) are advising the plaintiffs. Musgrave did not
name its fellow litigants.

UK courts
The Irish group is opting to take the claim in the UK courts as it
believes this gives it the best chance of receiving compensation
for paying anticompetitive interchange fees.

The original ruling in the Sainsbury's case, which established that
the interchange fees were uncompetitive, covers a period when the
UK was still part of the EU. The judgment notes that the British
court is bound to follow European law.

Musgrave is inviting franchise partners to join the action, but
stresses that each needs to decide for themselves whether they want
to participate. The company notes that it cannot give legal advice
or direction in relation to this decision.

"There will be no upfront costs for joining the claim, or costs if
the claim is not successful in achieving a settlement. However, all
parties to this class action will pay fees in line with those
agreed with both CMSPI (payment specialists) and Stephenson Harwood
(law firm) in the event of a successful claim," Musgrave says.

It adds that the fees are expected to be no greater than 40 per
cent of any settlement received from the card companies.

Musgrave cautions that there could be an industry-wide compensation
scheme in the future but joining the class action would rule
retailers out of taking part in any such programme.

"However, we are currently not aware of any such redress
compensation scheme being proposed or planned," Musgrave adds.

EU law
Musgrave's brands include SuperValu, Centra, Mace, Donnybrook Fair,
La Rousse and others. The group is one of the biggest players in
the Irish grocery market.

In 2020, the UK supreme court held that interchange fees charged by
Visa Europe Services LLC and Mastercard Incorporated were an
unlawful restriction of competition under article 101(1) of the
Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. This bans
agreements that prevent, restrict or distort competition.

The ruling upheld a 2018 finding by the UK court of appeal in a
case taken by Sainsbury's, Asda, Argos and Morrisons against the
two card companies, which ran for several years.

The judgment followed a ruling by the Court of Justice of the
European Union, which in turn upheld a decision by the European
Commission that the fees were unlawful.

Banks which issued cards to consumers charged multi-lateral
interchange fees on each transaction. The retailer's bank paid the
fee, charging it back to the retailer, which bore the cost.

The British court found that, as the interchange fee was set by a
collective decision between the banks and card companies, rather
than by competition in the market, retailers could not negotiate
with their own banks to reduce the charge. Thus the system breached
EU and UK competition law.

Musgrave said at the weekend that it did not comment on legal
matters. [GN]


WALT DISNEY: Disneyland Employees Enter Into Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Tremaine, writing for SFGate, reports that more than 25,000
current and former employees of Disneyland have entered into a
class action suit against the Walt Disney Company, alleging that
they're being underpaid. The suit, filed in 2019, was just granted
class-action status in July in the Orange County Superior Court.

Workers allege that Disney is receiving tax breaks from Anaheim,
and that under a city ordinance requiring any business receiving
subsidies from the city to pay a living wage, its Cast Members are
entitled to higher pay. Under Measure L, voted into law in 2018,
those businesses were required to pay employees $15 per hour when
it was passed, increasing to $18 by 2022, plus subsequent
cost-of-living increases.

In 2018, Disneyland entered into an agreement to raise its 10,000
union employees' pay to $15.45 by 2020, per CNN Money. Whether that
happened in the pandemic is unclear. The current California minimum
wage is $14.

Both Disneyland and the city of Anaheim disagree that the company
is responsible for that living wage increase.

At the heart of the issue is whether Disney is taking a city
subsidy because of the complicated way Anaheim is repaying
municipal bonds it took out to pay for construction of the Mickey
and Friends garage (it was the largest parking structure in the
country when it opened in 2000). The bonds are being repaid largely
through taxes Disney pays and through hotel room taxes collected by
the city as well. Randy Renick, the attorney who filed the class
action suit, believes that repayment constitutes a city subsidy,
since Disneyland keeps the revenue from the garage although it was
financed by the city.

"I think the issues here are simple: The voters demanded that
companies like Disney, who take public handouts, pay their workers
a living wage," Renick told the Los Angeles Times. "Disney should
not get a pass." [GN]

WELLCARE HEALTH: Fiorarancio Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO D. FIORARANCIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-14614 (D.N.J., August 4, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular
telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to promote its products or services
without their prior express consent. The Plaintiff and Class
members have been allegedly harmed by the acts of WellCare, because
their privacy has been violated, they were subject to annoying and
harassing calls that constitute a nuisance, and in many cases, they
were charged for incoming calls.

WellCare Health Plans, Inc. is an American health insurance company
that provides managed care services, with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
         KIM LAW FIRM LLC
         411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 273-7117
         Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
         E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

                - and –

         Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
         Catherine B. Derenze, Esq.
         LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
         570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 623-3000
         Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
         E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                 cderenze@litedepalma.com

                - and –

         Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
         Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
         MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
         1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 224-6000
         Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
         E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                 mboyle@meyerwilson.com

WELLS FARGO: $45MM Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted
preliminary approval of an agreement pursuant to which the Company
will pay $45 million and make certain changes to its GAP refund
practices in order to settle the action.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and
certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the
agencies.

In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers
who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to
automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party vendor on
their behalf.

Multiple putative class actions alleging, among other things,
unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, were
filed against the Company and consolidated into one multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

As previously disclosed, the Company entered into a settlement to
resolve the multi-district litigation. Shareholders also filed a
putative securities fraud class action against the Company and its
executive officers alleging material misstatements and omissions of
CPI-related information in the Company's public disclosures.

In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all
defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and
limited the action to two alleged misstatements.

In addition, the Company is subject to a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related to the
unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver or
insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by
assignment, the lender.

In June 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of an
agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay $45 million and
make certain changes to its GAP refund practices in order to settle
the action.

Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of a shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and
collection of consumer auto loans, including related insurance
products, have also subjected the Company to formal or informal
inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal and state
government agencies, including the CFPB.

As previously disclosed, the Company entered into an agreement to
resolve investigations by the state attorneys general.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Consent Order Disclosure Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit related to consent
order disclosure.

Wells Fargo shareholders have brought a putative securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers and directors made false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's efforts to comply
with the February 2018 consent order with the Federal Reserve Board
and the April 2018 consent orders with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC).

Allegations related to the Company's efforts to comply with these
three consent orders are also among the subjects of a shareholder
derivative lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Dismissal of Posting Related Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that that the order of
dismissal in the order of posting related suit, has been upheld.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.

Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court in
the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs,
and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the claims of
unnamed class members.

The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016,
and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On September 26, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
Wells Fargo's motion and dismissed the claims of unnamed class
members in favor of arbitration, which was appealed by plaintiffs
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In April 2021, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's
decision.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Interchange Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that several of the opt-out
and direct action litigations in the in the Interchange Litigation,
have been settled while others remain pending.

Plaintiffs representing a class of merchants have filed putative
class actions, and individual merchants have filed individual
actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company,
Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding the
interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card
transactions.

Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank holding
companies are also named as defendants in these actions.

These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against
defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.

The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the
consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately
$6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants
opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided
for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of
default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period
of eight consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants.

Other merchants opted out of the settlement and are pursuing
several individual actions. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit
vacated the settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the
consolidated action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the district
court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an
equitable relief class.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding.

The Company's allocated responsibility for the additional funding
is approximately $94.5 million. The court granted final approval of
the settlement on December 13, 2019, which was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by settlement
objector merchants. Several of the opt-out and direct action
litigations have been settled while others remain pending.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement Reached in NCUA Initiated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Company entered into
an agreement to resolve the case filed by the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited and certain related
entities and the NCUA filed complaints in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the Company in its
capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed
securities trusts.

Complaints raising similar allegations have been filed by
Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKB
International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state
court.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
trustee, caused losses to investors, and plaintiffs assert causes
of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged
failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and
warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and
abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of
default.

The Company previously settled two class actions with similar
allegations that were filed in November 2014 and December 2016 by
institutional investors in the Southern District of New York and
New York state court, respectively.

In March 2021, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the
case filed by the NCUA.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Trainees' Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that a Nebraska
federal court has denied Werner Enterprises' bid to dismiss another
wage lawsuit that claims it underpaid driver trainees.

Earlier in June, Judge Brian Buescher of the U.S. District Court in
Nebraska struck down Omaha, Neb.-based Werner's motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit. In November, former trainee Cynthia Rogers
filed the complaint, alleging the company violated both federal and
state wage laws.

Rogers began her trucking career by enrolling in Drivers
Management's training school, which is owned by Werner. Typical of
over-the-road trucking, trainees would essentially live in their
trucks for a week at a time while trading off driving duties with
their instructors. According to the complaint, trainees are "to be
responsible for their assigned tractor-trailer 'rigs' and the
contents therein on a 24-hour basis."

Plaintiffs argue that the only part of the 24 hours that is not
compensable is the eight-hour rest period. Therefore, Werner was
responsible for paying drivers for the remaining 16 hours, which it
did not. However, since drivers were not allowed to "engage in
private and personal pursuits of their own" during the eight-hour
rest period, the lawsuit argues Werner is required to pay them for
the full 24 hours of any given day out on the road.

If this sounds familiar, that is because Werner faced a similar
lawsuit not too long ago.

In June 2020, a federal appeals court overturned a district court's
ruling in Nebraska awarding former Werner trainees nearly $800,000
in unpaid wages. That lawsuit was litigated for nearly a decade.

In its attempt to have Rogers' case dismissed, Werner argued that
her and other trainees in the class action lawsuit are barred from
bringing what are essentially the exact same claims. The legal
principle of "res judicata" prevents any lawsuit from being heard
again if a court has already settled the matter. However, that
doctrine applies only to the same parties of the lawsuit. Rogers'
argued the she was not a party to the former lawsuit.

Judge Buescher stated in his order that "it is well settled that
for a class action lawsuit for money damages to bind an absent
class member, the member 'must receive notice plus an opportunity
to be heard and participate in the litigation.'" Werner does not
claim that Rogers was provided with proper notice of the previous
trainee class action lawsuit. In fact, Werner acknowledged that
Rogers "did not work for Werner until after the judgment was
entered."

Furthermore, even if Rogers was qualified to be a member of the
class, she would have had the opportunity to exclude herself to
pursue her own lawsuit. For obvious reasons, she did not have that
opportunity.

"Given Rogers could have excluded her claims if she had been a
member of the (previous) class, it makes little sense to this court
that she should be precluded from making her claims now as someone
who was not even employed by (Werner) at the time of the (previous)
lawsuit." [GN]


WOLFORD AMERICA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Redick Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL REDICK, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. WOLFORD AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-06137
(C.D. Cal., July 29, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.wolfordshop.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

The Defendant offers the website to the public. The website offers
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services which Defendant offers in connection with its physical
locations. The goods and services offered by Defendant include, but
are not limited to the following: new arrivals; collections such as
Amina Muaddi X Wolford, Stories of Empowerment, The W, Adidas X
Wolford, Aurora, 3W Collection, Helmut Newton, and Horoscope Looks;
hosiery such as tights, stay ups, fishnet tights, support tights,
knee-highs, overknees, socks, and a limited edition set; clothing
such as tops, t-shirts, pullovers, turtlenecks, dresses, bodysuits,
leggings, skirts, trousers, and accessories; beachwear; lingerie
such as bras, panties, and bodysuits; menswear such as t-shirts,
pure pants, and knee socks; sale items; and outlet goods. Consumers
can further access information regarding personalized accounts,
investor relations, career opportunities, store locations,
frequently asked questions, returns, shipping, Defendant’s
newsletter, contact information, size guide, and social media
webpages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

WW INTERNATIONAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Morrell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEE MORRELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
No. 20-cv-9912 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff, Lee Morrell, brings the putative class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against the
Defendant, WW, alleging violations of California state consumer
protection laws.  The Plaintiff brings five California state law
claims: (1) violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17500, et seq.; (3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (4) unjust
enrichment or restitution; and (5) violation of the Weight Loss
Contracts Act ("WLCA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1694.5, et seq.
The first four claims are based on allegations that the Defendant
violated California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"), Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17600, et seq.

The Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
alleging that there are more than one hundred class members, the
aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and there is
diversity of citizenship in that most of the Plaintiffs are
citizens of California and the Defendant is a citizen of Virginia
and New York.

WW is an international company incorporated in Virginia, with its
principal place of business in New York.  It offers monthly and
yearly subscriptions to assist customers in developing healthy
habits.  Subscription plans include services ranging from meal
tracking to personal coaching and in-person wellness checks.  These
subscriptions can be purchased through the Defendant's website or
mobile application.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of California.  On Jan. 3,
2018, the Plaintiff purchased a three-month membership from the
defendant, using the Defendant's mobile application while in
California.  On Jan. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was charged $44.85 for
this three-month membership.  On April 4, 2018 -- three months
after the Plaintiff originally signed up for his WW Subscription --
the Defendant automatically renewed his subscription, charging him
the standard monthly rate of $19.95.  The Defendant continued to
charge the Plaintiff $19.95 per month for the next 16 months.

The Plaintiff alleges that none of these "18 charges amounting to
$384" were authorized.  He asserts that at some point during
January 2018 -- the month in which he subscribed to WW -- he became
ill with an auto-immune disorder that prevented him from using his
arms or legs, and he "immediately discontinued use of the WW App
and any and all other products and services associated with his WW
Subscription."  However, because he "was not expecting the WW
Subscription to automatically renew, the thought of cancelling his
WW Subscription never occurred" to him.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action on behalf of "all
persons in California who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period incurred renewal fee(s) in connection with the
Defendant's WW Subscription offerings."

Before a customer finalizes a purchase through WW's website or
mobile application, the potential customer is directed to a
checkout page.  On this page, the customer is given information
about the subscription plan and pricing.  After the customer checks
off the required disclaimer box and submits the form, thus
completing the purchase, the customer receives an acknowledgment
email.  The Acknowledgment Email includes information about the
payment and selected plan, with a sentence stating that the
"subscription will be automatically renewed at the end of the
payment plan at the standard monthly rate."

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not aware that his subscription
would renew automatically when he purchased it.  Indeed, he alleges
that he did not discover the autorenewal and subsequent charges
until the Defendant notified him that his payment authorization had
failed on Sept. 3, 2019.  The Plaintiff alleges that neither the
Initial Disclosure nor the Acknowledgment Email alerted him to "the
fact that his WW Subscription would automatically renew after the
initial three-month period."

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff has provided examples of other WW
customers raising similar grievances about WW's automatic renewal
of subscriptions on social media and consumer protection websites
such as the site for the Better Business Bureau.

Discussion

I. Rule 12(b)(1)

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim because he
lacks standing.  To satisfy the constitutional requirement of
Article III standing, the plaintiff "must show (i) that the
plaintiff suffered an injury in fact that is concrete,
particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was
likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would
likely be redressed by judicial relief."

Judge Koeltl opines that the Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient
to demonstrate Article III standing.  The Plaintiff has alleged
that he suffered an economic injury because he would not have made
the initial payment or renewed the plan if he had been aware of the
automatic renewal.  His allegation that he suffered a real and
tangible economic harm satisfies the requirement that the harm be
concrete, particularized, and actual.

The Defendant has argued in support of its Rule 12(b)(1) motion
that the Plaintiff lacks "statutory standing"; however, that
argument does not support a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.  Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.

II. Rule 12(b)(6)

The Plaintiff has brought five California state law claims: (1)
violation of the UCL; (2) violation of the FAL; (3) violation of
the CLRA; (4) unjust enrichment or restitution; and (5) violation
of the WLCA.  All but the WLCA allegations are based on violations
of the ARL.

A. CLRA, UCL, and FAL

First, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for violations of the CLRA, UCL, or FAL, both because he
has failed to alleged harms cognizable under the CLRA, UCL, and
FAL, and because he has failed to allege a violation of the ARL.
It argues that the Plaintiff is unable to bring a claim under the
CLRA because he has failed to allege "any damage" that was "a
result of" any alleged actions by the defendant in violation of the
CLRA.  However, Judge Koeltl finds that the Plaintiff has alleged
that he suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the Defendant's
alleged violation of the CLRA, based on violations of the ARL.
Thus, he has pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim under the
CLRA.

Second, the Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff is unable to
bring a claim under the UCL or FAL because he has not suffered an
"injury in fact" within the meaning of the UCL or FAL, because it
has not alleged an injury caused by any alleged violation of the
UCL or FAL.  However, Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiff has
alleged that he lost money as a result of the Defendant's alleged
violations of the FAL and UCL, because he has alleged that he was
unaware of the automatic renewals for his subscription as a result
of WW's defective disclosures.  He alleges that these allegedly
defective disclosures caused him to spend money on services he
never intended to purchase.  Accordingly, the facts pleaded are
sufficient to allow a cause of action under the UCL and FAL,
respectively, based on alleged violations of the ARL.

Third, the Defendant has also argued that the Plaintiff has failed
to plead facts sufficient to allege a violation of the ARL.  In the
case, the Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant violated the ARL
both in the Initial Disclosure and the Acknowledgment Email, and
has provided screenshots of both allegedly defective disclosures.
Based on the screenshots and the facts alleged, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the Initial
Disclosure violated the ARL.

Fourth, the Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has also
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the
Acknowledgment Email violates the ARL.  However, the Defendant's
arguments are unpersuasive, the Judge finds.  It is true that the
Acknowledgment Email is in a medium capable of being stored,
includes a note that the "subscription will be automatically
renewed at the end of the payment plan," and states the next
billing fee following automatic renewal.  However, the Defendant
fails to provide any information about the cancellation policy in
the Acknowledgement Email and merely states "instructions on how to
cancel are located in the Help section of the WW site."

Lastly, the Defendant has argued that the Plaintiff's complaint
should be dismissed because it is entitled to the ARL's good faith
safe harbor.  The Judge explains that Section 17604 provides a safe
harbor "if a business complies with the provisions of the ARL in
good faith."  However, on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), he cannot determine the Defendant's alleged good faith on
the pleadings.  The Defendant has not cited any authority applying
the ARL's safe harbor provision on a motion to dismiss.  Moreover,
contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the Complaint does not
clearly establish as a matter of law that WW attempted in good
faith to satisfy all of the ARL requirements.

B. Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiff has also brought a claim for unjust enrichment, based
on the Defendant's alleged ARL violations.  He alleges that the
Defendant was able to secure money from him by violating the ARL
and has thus been unjustly enriched by retaining these profits.
The Defendant has argued that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim fails as a matter of law because California law does not
provide for a standalone cause of action for unjust enrichment.

Judge Koeltl opines that the Plaintiff's claim can be construed as
an attempt to plead a cause of action giving rise to a right of
restitution.  The Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the
defendant violated the ARL, and goods or services delivered in
violation of the ARL "shall for all purposes be deemed an
unconditional gift to the consumer."  Based on the Plaintiff's
allegations of an ARL violation, the Defendant's acceptance of
money for the "unconditional gift" could give rise to a claim for
unjust enrichment or restitution.  Therefore, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss this claim is denied.

C. WLCA

Finally, the Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant violated
California's WLCA. Because WW is a "weight loss program" that
offers "instruction, counseling, supervision, or assistance" in
"diet" and "eating habits" within the meaning of the WLCA,
contracts between WW and its customers are governed by the WLCA
provisions.

Judge Koeltl states that the Plaintiff has pleaded that the Terms
and Conditions did not include any language akin to that required
by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1694.7(b).  The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that he was a "buyer injured"
by its alleged failure to provide the notice required by the WLCA,
and thus has failed to state a claim under the WLCA, because the
Plaintiff did not allege any attempt to cancel within the three-day
cancellation window.  However, the Plaintiff has alleged
specifically that had the Defendant adequately presented the
requisite disclosure, he would have been aware of the automatic
renewal, and would have either chosen not to subscribe to WW or
would have canceled his subscription within the three-day grace
period.  These allegations, the Judge points out, are sufficient to
plead an injury caused by a violation of the WLCA and to state a
claim under the statute.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made a
showing sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).

Conclusion

Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments raised by the
parties.  To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments
are either moot or without merit.  For the foregoing reasons, the
motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.  The Clerk
is directed to close Docket Nos. 10 and 16.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8uepmk2 from
Leagle.com.


XPO LOGISTICS: Preston Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Preston and Darren Treanor, Individually, and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. XPO Logistics, Inc.; XPO
Logistics, LLC; Pioneer VNS, Inc.; and Greg Lyon and Jane Doe Lyon,
a Married Couple, Case No. 2:21-cv-01319-SRB (D. Ariz., July 29,
2021) is a collective action complaint for unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code Ann. for the Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff all earned overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly-situated current and former employees of Defendants who
were Drivers, Installers, and Drivers' Helpers classified by
Defendants as independent contractors and not paid one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for time worked in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek.

Plaintiff Steven Preston was hired by Defendants and worked for
Defendants as a Driver and Installer from March 2021 through July
2021.

The Defendants are logistics and delivery companies that contract
with retail stores–in this case, Lowe's -- to deliver goods and
products that customers purchase from Lowe's.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOSEPH METCALF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.;
YUSEN LOGISTICS CO., LTD. DBA YUSEN LOGISTICS GROUP; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV28695 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 4, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act
including failure to provide prompt payment of wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to pay
minimum wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Los Angeles,
California.

Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc. is a logistics provider doing
business in Los Angeles, California.

Yusen Logistics Co. Ltd., doing business as Yusen Logistics Group,
is a logistics transportation company doing business in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
           
         Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
         Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
         SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
         316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90012
         Telephone: (213) 814-4940

Z & L WRECKING: Underpays Laborers and Operators, Moore Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DE'MARCO MOORE, individually and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Z & L WRECKING CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00956 (E.D. Mo., August 2, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay construction laborers and machine-operators'
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
construction laborer, asserts that the Defendant required him and
other similarly situated manual workers to stay past the end of
their scheduled shift and work hours at a time without pay. Despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied
them of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated construction
laborers and machine operators, the Plaintiff brings this complaint
seeking to recover all unpaid overtime compensation against the
Defendant, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Z & L Wrecking Co., Inc. is a business that performs a multitude of
demolition work with more than over 20 years of demolition
expertise in residential, commercial, and industrial demolition.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

ZOOM VIDEO: October 21 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dobberstein, writing for The Register, reports that US-based
Zoom users may have a little cash coming their way after the video
meeting outfit lodged a preliminary settlement in a class action
related to some of its less-than-brilliant security and data
protection practices.

The settlement was filed on July 31 in an attempt to end a class
action that alleged Zoom indulged in unlawful activities --
including misrepresenting its end-to-end encryption capabilities
and unauthorized transfer of personal data to third parties like
Facebook, Google and LinkedIn -- as well as implementing grossly
inadequate security and privacy controls.

The latter led to "Zoombombing" -- a distinctly 2020 term
describing the hijacking of Zoom meetings, typically to display
offensive material or otherwise disrupt people going about their
business.

According to the court document [PDF], the settlement establishes a
non-reversionary cash fund of US$85 million to pay claims and fees.
Zoom collected approximately $1.3 billion from US subscribers, and
the settlement amount represents around six per cent of the total
revenues collected based on allegedly unlawful activities.

That translates to a 15 per cent refund on core subscriptions, or
$25 for more expensive subscriptions. Users without subscriptions
stand to take home $15. Legal fees are expected to be US$21.25
million.

The deal requires approval from US District Judge Lucy Koh (who
incidentally also presided over one of Apple and Samsung's many
court battles), before it is finalised. Another hearing is
scheduled for October 21, 2021.

In addition coughing up cash, Zoom has promised to improve its
security, privacy and data measures. It aims to introduce features
like in-meeting notifications on who can see, save and share
information, privacy statements that disclose the software's
sharing of data with third parties, and keeping records of meeting
disruptions that involve illegal content. As a part of the
settlement, Facebook has been asked to delete any US user data
obtained from Zoom's software development kit.

The San Jose-based communications company denied wrongdoing and, at
least when it came to Zoombombing, Judge Koh mostly agreed. Section
230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act provides immunity for
web site platforms from third-party content. The court concluded
that the "bulk of Plaintiffs' Zoombombing claims lie against the
'Zoombombers' who shared heinous content, not Zoom itself. Zoom
merely "provid[ed] neutral tools for navigating' its service."

The company released a statement, declaring "The privacy and
security of our users are top priorities for Zoom, and we take
seriously the trust our users place in us."

The Register has reached out to Zoom, but at the time of posting
had not heard a reply.

If approved, aggrieved users will be able to apply for their $25 at
the not-yet functioning settlement web site
www.ZoomMeetingsClassAction.com. [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Settles Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $85 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!News reports that Zoom, the videoconferencing firm, has
agreed to settle a class-action US privacy lawsuit for $85 million,
it said on Aug. 1.

The suit charged that Zoom's sharing of users' personal data with
Facebook, Google and LinkedIn was a breach of privacy for
millions.

While Zoom denied wrongdoing, it did agree to improve its security
practices.

The settlement needs to be approved by US District Judge Lucy Koh
in San Jose, California.

A Zoom spokesman told AFP: "The privacy and security of our users
are top priorities for Zoom, and we take seriously the trust our
users place in us.

"We are proud of the advancements we have made to our platform, and
look forward to continuing to innovate with privacy and security at
the forefront."

The settlement will set up a "non-reversionary cash fund of $85
million to pay valid claims, notice and administration costs,
Service Payments to Class Representatives, and any attorneys' fees
and costs awarded by the Court," according to the preliminary
settlement.

All class members are eligible for payment, it said.

Those who paid for an account can receive 15 percent of the money
they paid to Zoom for their core subscription during that time or
$25, whichever is greater; while those who did not pay for a
subscription can make a claim for $15.

As the coronavirus pandemic closed offices due to health risks and
companies shifted to working online, use of video and collaboration
platforms hosted by companies including Zoom, Slack, Microsoft, and
Google rocketed.

But Zoom's rapid growth came with pressure to deal with security
and privacy as the platform faced scrutiny from rising usage. [GN]

ZYMERGEN INC: Shankar Sues Over 76% Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------
HARIRAM SHANKAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZYMERGEN INC., JOSH HOFFMAN, ENAKSHI SINGH,
STEVEN CHU, JAY T. FLATLEY, CHRISTINE M. GORJANC, TRAVIS MURDOCH,
MATTHEW A. OCKO, SANDRA E. PETERSON, ZACH SERBER, ROHIT SHARMA,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, COWEN AND
COMPANY, LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, and LAZARD
FRERES & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06028 (N.D. Cal.,
August 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made a materially false
and misleading registration statement about Zymergen's business,
operations, and prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in order to trade Zymergen common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the company's April 2021 initial public
offering (IPO). Specifically, the registration statement allegedly
omitted to state: (1) that, during the qualification process for
Hyaline, the company's optical film product, key customers had
encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and
incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) that, though the
qualification process was critical to achieving market acceptance
for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into
the qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the company
overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the company's product delivery timeline was reasonably
likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants'
positive statements about the company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $26.58 per
share, or 76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors, says the suit.

Zymergen Inc. is a science and material innovation company,
headquartered in Emeryville, California.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is a securities brokerage company based
in New York, New York.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York, New York.

Cowen and Company, LLC is an investment banking services based in
New York, New York.

BofA Securities, Inc. is a capital market company based in New
York, New York.

UBS Securities LLC is an investment bank and brokerage firm based
in New York, New York.

Lazard Freres & Co. LLC is a financial advisory and asset
management firm based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.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 ***