/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210826.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 165

                            Headlines

20/20 HEARING CARE: Johnson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
3M COMPANY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 30
3M COMPANY: Dickey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Dreyfus Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Ellmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Holt Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Krusius Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Perdue Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Sardis Sues Over Asbestos Exposure From Products
3M COMPANY: Shelton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Verges Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Washington Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Weber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Webster Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Wilson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
A.R.M. SOLUTIONS: Faces FDCPA Suit in Northern District of Georgia
ALUM FINANCIAL: Hendricks Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
ALYK INC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ANN SACKS: Faces Alonzo ADA Suit in Central District of California
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Unit Continues to Defend Membrives Class Suit
AVIVA METALS: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 & FLSA Subclasses
BAYER CORPORATION: Maiorino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

BAYERHEALTHCARE LLC: Bomwell Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Ashbourne "Injury" Suit in N.D.N.Y.
BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE CROSS: Brent S. Files Suit in D. Utah
BROCO LLC: Faces Alonzo ADA Suit in Central District of California

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
CALIFORNIA STATE: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Downing Suit
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Seeks August 30 Extension of Class Cert. Response
CARE.COM INC: Skelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by September 6

CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces Perez Suit in District of New Jersey
COLT BBQ: Kapzynski Files Bid for Conditional Certification
CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Partly Compelled to Show Call Data in Yates
CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Faces Brever FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Must File Class Cert. Response by September 7

CREDIT CORP: Asbury FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
CROWN CASTLE: Putative Class Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
CURA CA: Stahr Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to E.D. California
CUSTOM DESIGN: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Salinas Suit Says
DAME PRODUCTS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DIGITAL RECOGNITION: Mata Suit Removed to S.D. California
ELANCO ANIMAL: Levensten Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
ELIZABETH OSTENDORF: Faces Carr FLSA Suit in District of Colorado
ENVESTNET INC: Bid to Junk Wesch Putative Class Suit Pending
ENVESTNET INC: Bid to Nix Drake Putative Class Suit Pending

FABER & BRAND: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought in Turner Suit
FARMGIRL FLOWERS: Fails to Pay Wages, Aguilar Class Suit Says
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Allred Putative Class Action Underway
FLINT, MI: Bid for Class Certification in Water Cases Partly OK'd
FLUIDIGM CORP: Court Dismisses Saintjermain Suit

FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Suit in Texas Underway
FOREST RIVER: Forest River Seeks Manufacturing Staff's Unpaid Wages
FUSION LEARNING: Murphy Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
FUTURE MOTION: Faces Loh "Personal Injury" Suit in N.D. California
GAZAROTTI GROUP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California

GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Tours Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Certification of Recruiter Class Sought
HORMEL FOODS: Faces Dakin Suit in Northern District of California
INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Suit Dismissed
INTERSECT ENT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 22

JAGUAR LAND: Nejat Suit Removed from Superior Court to New Jersey
JOHN ROBSHAW: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KATE BROWN: Gardner Files Suit in D. Oregon
KELLOGG SALES: Harris Files Suit in E.D. New York
KOCHAVA INC: SDK Collects Personal Data, Rushing Class Suit Says

KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Rogers Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
KRAFT HEINZ: Illinois Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Hedick Suit
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Manopla Suit Under Appeal
LIFE LINE: Seeks Second Extension on Class Cert. Response
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Underway

LUMOS PHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 22
MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Daniels Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Lambert Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Woolwine Suit Transferred to N.D. California
METLIFE INC:Dismissal of Parchmann Suit Under Appeal

MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Zirpoli Case
MODIVCARE INC: Caregivers' Suit Against All Metro Underway
MODIVCARE INC: Farah Suit Gets Conditional Certification
MODIVCARE INC: Subsidiary Faces Federal Class Suit
MOOREGROUP CORP: Court Certifies Class of Employees in Porter Suit

MRS BPO: Faces Williams FDCPA Suit in Southern District of New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Facchine Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
NCAA: Weed Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NESTLE USA: Howze Sues Over Coffee Mate's Mislabeled Servings
NETFLIX INC: Ashdown City Seeks Class Certification

NEW YORK CITY: Malcolm Seeks Certification of Collective Action
NITORI USA: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Burger Suit Removed to C.D. California
NORWICH COMMERCIAL: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
NURTURE INC: Faces Altuve Fraud Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Lytle Seeks Certification of Class Action
OCUGEN INC: Faces Covaxin Related Putative Class Suits
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Concluded
OREGON MUTUAL: Court Tosses Dakota Ventures' 1st Amended Complaint
PARETEUM CORP: Bids to Dismiss 1st Amended Securities Suit Denied

PEABODY ENERGY: Bid to Junk Putative Securities Suit in NY Pending
PERFORMIX LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. California
PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Castillo Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident Underway
POINT PARK: W.D. Pennsylvania Narrows Claims in Figueroa Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Burger FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Stipulation of Dismissal of Sites Suit Vacated
PREMIERE CREDIT: Heppinstall Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
QUANTA SERVICES: Benton Seeks $37MM Attorneys' Fees
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Etienne Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.N.J.

RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway
RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Currently Being Administered
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Moore TCPA Class Suit in N.D. California
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Discovery in Guerrero Class Action Ongoing
SAFE BOX: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Gilmore Class Suit Says

SAKURA MANDARIN: Huang Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SDH SERVICES WEST: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SEAWORLD PARKS: Simons Files Suit in S.D. California
SIERRA CORPORATE: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit

SKY LAND: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Spectrum Legacy
STAMPS.COM: Agreement in Principle Reached in Karinski Class Suit
SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO: Court Enters Class Cert. Scheduling order

TAMKO BUILDING: Court Enters Revised Class Cert. Scheduling Order
UDEMY INC: Williams Files Suit in N.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Faces Megahomes Suit in Court of Federal Claims
UNITED STATES: Jensen Files Suit in E.D. Washington

UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Enters Case Management & Scheduling Order
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Lam Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
US OIL FUND: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing
VELOCITY RAIL: Irvin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
VIVINT INC: Fitzhenry Suit Transferred to D. Utah

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gonzalez Suit Moved from State Court to D.N.J.
WALMART INC: Carr Suit Removed to C.D. California
WE RAISE YOUR CREDIT: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
WEST MASS: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response
WINCO HOLDINGS: Faces Putman Employment Suit in Calif. State Court

YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California
ZALE DELAWARE: Kainth Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California

                            *********

20/20 HEARING CARE: Johnson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Suzanne Johnson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. 20/20 Hearing Care Network, LLC, was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Aug. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-61755-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

20/20 Hearing Care Network -- https://2020hearingnetwork.com/ -- is
an emerging force in accredited hearing care service
providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caitlin F Saladrigas, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1900
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 650-8349
          Email: caitlin.saladrigas@hklaw.com


3M COMPANY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to August 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY ZIMMERMAN, et al.,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE 3M
COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-01062-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y.
Jarbou  entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
parties' stipulated order to extend deadlines to file motion for
class certification and expert reports.

   -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file their motion for class
      certification and expert reports in support of class
      certification is extended to August 30, 2021.

   -- The deadline for Defendants to file their responses to
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended
      until September 27, 2021.

   -- All dates and deadlines in the First Amended Case
      Management Order remains as scheduled.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.

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


3M COMPANY: Dickey Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL DON DICKEY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02476-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Dreyfus Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RUTTENCUTTER DREYFUS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD.,
CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.),
DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:21-cv-02477-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6, 2021) seeks damages for personal
injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing
the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Ellmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
THERON REED ELLMER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02480-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Holt Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALFORD HOLT v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02518-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Johnson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEN H. JOHNSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02520-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Krusius Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD EWALD KRUSIUS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02475-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Perdue Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON PERDUE, 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-02661-RMG (D.S.C., August 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE ROBINSON, 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-02674-RMG
(D.S.C., August 19, 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 and skin cancer, the suit
alleges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Sardis Sues Over Asbestos Exposure From Products
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SARDIS and TONI SARDIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; ADVANCED THERMAL HYDRONICS,
INC.; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; ALFA LAVAL INC.; AM GENERAL LLC; AMERICAN
BILTRITE, INC.; AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS, INC.; AMETEK, INC.,
individually and as successor to Schutte & Koerting; AZROCK
INDUSTRIES, INC., n/k/a Domco Products Texas, Inc.; BASF CATALYSTS
LLC; BLACKMER PUMP; BURNHAM LLC; BWDAC, INC.; CARRIER CORPORATION;
CLARK-RELIANCE CORPORATION, individually and as successor to
Jerguson Gage & Valve Co.; CLA-VAL CO.; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.,
individually and as successor to Davis Engineering Co.; COLUMBIA
BOILER COMPANY OF POTTSTOWN; CRANE CO.; CROSBY VALVE, LLC; CROWN
BOILER CO., f/k/a Crown Industries, Inc.; DAP PRODUCTS, INC., k/n/a
LA MIRADA PRODUCTS CO., INC.; DCO, LLC, formerly known as Dana
Companies, LLC; DEWITT PRODUCTS COMPANY; DUREZ CORPORATION; EATON
HYDRAULICS LLC, successor by merger. to Eaton Hydraulics Inc.
(formerly known as Vickers, Incorporated); ECR INTERNATIONAL INC.,
f/k/a Dunkirk Radiator Corp., and as successor by merger to The
Utica Companies, Inc.; ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., individually
and as successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan; ELLIOT COMPANY;
FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., f/k/a Automation Industries, Inc.;
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, f/k/a The Duriron Compan, Inc.; FLOWSERVE
U.S. INC., as successor-in-interest to Durametallic Corporation,
Inc.; FLOWSERVE U.S. INC., solely as successor to Rockwell
Manufacturing Company, Edward Valves, Inc., Nordstrom Valves, Inc.,
and Edward Vogt Company; FMC CORPORATION on behalf of its former
Peerless Pump and Northern Pump business; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS LLC f/k/a Goulds Pumps Incorporated;
GRINNELL LLC; H.B. FULLER COMPANY; HENRY COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a as AlliedSignal Inc., as
successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation; HOWDEN NORTH
AMERICA, INC., f/k/a Howden Buffalo, Inc.; IMO INDUSTRIES INC.;
IRWIN INDUSTRIAL TOOL COMPANY; ITT LLC; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; JENKINS BROS.; JOHN ZINK COMPANY, LLC; KARNAK CORPORATION;
MACK TRUCKS, INC.; MANNINGTON MILLS, INC.; MESTEK, INC.; MORSE TEC
LLC, f/k/a BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, as Successor-By-Merger to
Borg-Warner Corporation; MULE-HIDE PRODUCTS CO. INC.; NEW YORKER
BOILER COMPANY, INC.; OSHKOSH CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
CORPORATION; PALMER ASPHALT COMPANY; PCC TECHNICAL INDUSTRIES,
INC., f/k/a Boiler Technologies, Inc.; PECORA CORPORATION; PNEUMO
ABEX LLC, successor in interest to Abex Corporation; PUGET SOUND
COMMERCE CENTER, INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY;
RUGGLES-KLINGEMAN MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; SIPERSTEIN FORDS PAINT
CORPORATION; SOS PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; SPIRAX SARCO, INC.;
SUPERIOR LIDGERWOOD MUNDY CORPORATION; TARKETT, INC.; THE AMERICAN
LUBRICANTS COMPANY; THE J.R. CLARKSON COMPANY, LLC as successor by
merger to Kunkle Industries, Inc.; THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY; UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION; UTILITY ENTERPRISES CO., INC.; UTILITY
MANUFACTURING CO., INC.; VANDERBILT MINERALS LLC; VELAN VALVE
CORP.; VIACOMCBS INC., f/k/a CBS Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corporation; VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC; WARREN PUMPS
LLC; YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; John Doe Corporations 1-50;
and John Doe Corporations 51-100, Defendants, Case No.
MID-L-004923-21 (N.J. Super., Middlesex Cty., August 19, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of express and
implied warranties, failure to warn, and negligence by
manufacturing and selling products or equipment that contain
asbestos.

The case arises from the personal injury sustained by Plaintiff
Michael Sardis as a result of his exposure to respirable asbestos
fibers from asbestos-containing products and/or equipment
manufactured, supplied, distributed and/or specified by the
Defendants while performing personal automotive work. Mr. Sardis
developed mesothelioma and has suffered and continues to suffer
from other various diverse injuries and attendant complications.

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.

Advanced Thermal Hydronics, Inc. is a boiler manufacturer based in
Pennsylvania.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is an industrial equipment
supplier in Rochester Hills, Michigan.

Alfa Laval Inc. is an industrial equipment manufacturer based in
Sweden.

AM General LLC is an American heavy vehicle and contract automotive
manufacturer based in South Bend, Indiana.

American Biltrite, Inc. is a manufacturer of industrial rubber
products based in Massachusetts.

American Premier Underwriters, Inc. is a property and casualty
insurance company, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ametek, Inc. is an American global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices, headquartered in
Pennsylvania.

Azrock Industries, Inc., n/k/a Domco Products Texas, Inc., is a
manufacturing company based in Texas.

BASF Catalysts LLC is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.

Blackmer Pump is a pump manufacturer based in Michigan.

Burnham LLC is a boiler manufacturer in Pennsylvania.

BWDAC, Inc. is a for-profit corporation based in Ohio.

Carrier Corporation is an American multinational home appliances
corporation based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Clark-Reliance Corporation is an electrical supply store in
Strongsville, Ohio.

Cla-Val Co. is a manufacturer of automatic control valves based in
California.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. is a boiler manufacturer based in Georgia.

Columbia Boiler Company of Pottstown is a plumber in Stowe,
Pennsylvania.

Crane Co. is an American industrial products company based in
Stamford, Connecticut.

Crosby Valve, LLC is a manufacturer of industrial valve products
based in Minnesota.

Crown Boiler Co., f/k/a Crown Industries, Inc., is a plumbing
supply store in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

DAP Products, Inc., k/n/a La Mirada Products Co., Inc., is a
manufacturer of latex caulks, silicone sealants, adhesives,
insulating foams, and patch & repair products, headquartered in
Baltimore, Maryland.

DCO, LLC, formerly known as Dana Companies, LLC, is an equipment
manufacturer in Ohio.

Dewitt Products Company is a manufacturer of asphalt roof cements,
roof coatings, aluminum coatings, asphalt emulsions, acrylic white
coatings, and other materials, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

Durez Corporation is a plastic fabrication company in Niagara
Falls, New York.

Eaton Hydraulics LLC is a hydraulic solutions supplier in
Minnesota.

ECR International Inc., f/k/a Dunkirk Radiator Corp. is a
manufacturing company that provides heating and cooling products,
headquartered in Utica, New York.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of
electrical appliances in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Elliot Company is a company that designs, manufactures, installs,
and services turbo-machinery for prime movers and rotating
machinery, headquartered in Jeannette, Pennsylvania.

Flexible Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Automation Industries, Inc., is
manufacturer of hoses, headquartered in South Carolina.

Flowserve Corporation, f/k/a The Duriron Compan, Inc., is a
machinery industry company based in Irving, Texas.

Flowserve U.S. Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of flow
control products based in Irving, Texas.

FMC Corporation is an American chemical manufacturing company,
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation is a construction engineering
company based in Switzerland.

Gardner Denver, Inc. is a provider of flow control equipment,
headquartered in North Carolina.

General Electric Company is an American multinational conglomerate,
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

Goulds Pumps LLC, f/k/a Goulds Pumps Incorporated, is a pump
manufacturer based in New York.

Grinnell LLC is pipe manufacturer based in Florida.

H.B. Fuller Company is an American adhesives manufacturing company,
headquartered in Minnesota.

Henry Company LLC is a manufacturer of roof coatings, cements and
driveway maintenance products, headquartered in California.

Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a as AlliedSignal Inc., is an
American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate headquartered
in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Howden North America, Inc., f/k/a Howden Buffalo, Inc., is a
manufacturer of blowers and fans based in Ohio.

IMO Industries Inc. is a pump manufacturer based in North
Carolina.

Irwin Industrial Tool Company is an American manufacturer and
distributor of hand tools and power tool accessories, headquartered
in North Carolina.

ITT LLC is an American manufacturing company based in New York.

J.H. France Refractories Company is a brick manufacturer in the
U.S.

Jenkins Bros. is a manufacturing company based in New York.

John Zink Company, LLC is a manufacturer of emissions control
systems based in Oklahoma.

Karnak Corporation is a manufacturer of sustainable liquid-applied
roofing solutions based in New Jersey.

Mack Trucks, Inc. is an American truck manufacturing company,
headquartered in North Carolina.

Mannington Mills, Inc. is an international flooring manufacturer
with corporate headquarters in Salem, New Jersey.

Mestek, Inc. is a manufacturer of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment and automated manufacturing machinery
based in Massachusetts.

Morse TEC LLC, f/k/a BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, is an insurance
company in Michigan.

Mule-Hide Products Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of roofing products
based in Wisconsin.

New Yorker Boiler Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of residential
heating products, headquartered in Pennsylvania.

Oshkosh Corporation is an American industrial company based in
Wisconsin.

Occidental Chemical Corporation is a chemicals company based in
Dallas, Texas.

Palmer Asphalt Company is a building materials company
headquartered in Bayonne, New Jersey.

PCC Technical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Boiler Technologies, Inc., is
a boiler manufacturer in Ohio.

Pecora Corporation is a company that offers adhesive, sealant and
weatherproofing solutions, headquartered in Pennsylvania.

Pneumo Abex LLC is an equipment manufacturer based in New Jersey.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc. is a company that operates a
shipyard in Seattle, Washington.

Rheem Manufacturing Company is an American manufacturer that
produces residential and commercial water heaters and boilers, as
well as heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment based
in Georgia.

Ruggles-Klingeman Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a manufacturing
company based in New Hampshire.

Siperstein Fords Paint Corporation is a paint company in New
Jersey.

SOS Products Company, Inc. is a company that provides products for
the plumbing and heating industry based in Pennsylvania.

Spirax Sarco, Inc. is a company that provides steam system
engineering solutions based in United Kingdom.

Superior Lidgerwood Mundy Corporation is an equipment and machinery
manufacturer based in Wisconsin.

Tarkett, Inc. is a manufacturer of flooring and coating products,
headquartered in Canada.

The American Lubricants Company is a company that manufactures and
supplies lubricating oils, headquartered in Ohio.

The J.R. Clarkson Company, LLC is a manufacturing company based in
Houston, Texas.

The Marley-Wylain Company is a manufacturer of heating and cooling
equipment, headquartered in Indiana.

Union Carbide Corporation is an American chemical corporation,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Utility Enterprises Co., Inc. is a chemicals company based in New
York.

Utility Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a chemicals company based in
California.

Vanderbilt Minerals LLC is a supplier of mineral and chemical
products based in New York.

Velan Valve Corp. is a manufacturer of industrial steel valves
based in Vermont.

Viacomcbs Inc., f/k/a CBS Corporation, is an American diversified
multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate corporation
based in New York.

Volvo Group North America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer based
in North Carolina.

Warren Pumps LLC is machinery industry company, headquartered in
Massachusetts.

York International Corporation is a manufacturer of heating and
ventilation products, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Keith Binder, Esq.
         LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
         605 Third Avenue, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10158
         Telephone: (212) 605-6200

3M COMPANY: Shelton Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY LEROY SHELTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02481-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Verges Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH VERGES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02486-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Washington Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA WASHINGTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02519-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 9,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Weber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WEBER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02485-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Webster Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE WEBSTER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02478-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Wilson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY ARDEL WILSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02479-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 6,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

A.R.M. SOLUTIONS: Faces FDCPA Suit in Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.R.M. Solutions,
Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Weiler v. A.R.M. Solutions,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03222-SDG-AJB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 6,
2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg.

A.R.M. is a full service collection agency providing custom debt
recovery solutions for companies of all sizes in various markets.

The Defendants include A.R.M. Solutions, Inc. and John Does
1-25.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Telephone: (404) 500-7861
          E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com

ALUM FINANCIAL: Hendricks Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katharine H. Hendricks, for herself and all
other New Mexico residents who are similarly situated v. Alum
Financial, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No.
D-101-CV-2021-01371 was removed from the First Judicial District,
Santa Fe County New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico on Aug. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00798-KRS-JFR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement.

Alum Financial -- https://alumfinancial.com/ -- is Dedicated
Student Loan Advocate and specializes in assisting borrowers with
navient student loan lawsuit settlement.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathan M. Gallinat, Esq.
          JABURG WILK
          3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 248-1006
          Fax: (602) 248-0522
          Email: nmg@jaburgwilk.com


ALYK INC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALYK, Inc. The case
is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. ALYK, Inc. doing business as Lola,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07080 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2021).

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

ALYK, Inc. doing business as Lola -- https://mylola.com/ --
provides personal hygiene products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal



ANN SACKS: Faces Alonzo ADA Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Sacks Tile and
Stone, Inc. The case is captioned as Thuy Thanh Alonzo v. Ann Sacks
Tile and Stone, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06421-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 9, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.

Ann Sacks Tile And Stone, Inc. provides tiles and related products.
The Company offers lumber and other building materials.

The Defendants include Ann Sacks Tile and Stone, Inc., an Oregon
corporation, and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a company subsidiary
continues to defend an employment class action suit in California.

On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to
potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021.

Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.

Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there
remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, we do not believe that any potential loss to the Company is
reasonably estimable at this time. As of June 30, 2021, no amounts
have been accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the
U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Unit Continues to Defend Membrives Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Remington Lodging &
Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives.

On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.

On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.).

The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees.

In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.
The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State
Appellate Division, Second Department.

The Second Department heard oral arguments in this matter on April
20, 2021, and on July 14, 2021, affirmed in part, and modified in
part, the trial court's summary judgement in favor of the
plaintiffs.

Based on the Second Department's holding, all information produced
during discovery, and the continuing cost and risk, to both sides,
of further appeals related to this matter, the Company is analyzing
whether to continue to appeal and vigorously defend this matter or
to pursue an out-of-court settlement.

The Company believes it is probable that it will ultimately incur a
loss from this litigation.

As a result, the Company has recorded an accrual of approximately
$1.8 million as of June 30, 2021.

The final outcome could result in a loss of up to approximately $10
million in excess of the amount accrued, plus additional interest
and attorneys' fees.

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room generally less than two times the
U.S. national average. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.


AVIVA METALS: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 & FLSA Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD DORSEY, et al., On
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AVIVA
METALS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02014-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the
Representative Plaintiffs Donald Dorsey and Craig Murphy seek Rule
23 certification of two subclasses ("Rule 23 Subclasses") of
non-exempt hourly employees of Aviva, for years, have been
allegedly systematically denied compensation by virtue of the
Defendants' illegal wage policies in violation of the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs also seek conditional certification of two
subclasses under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), ("FLSA
Subclasses").

The Rule 23 Subclasses are identified as:

   -- The "Rule 23 Time Editing Class"

      "All present and former hourly manufacturing employees of
      Aviva Metals, Inc. at Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 5311 West River
      Rd. N., Lorain, OH 44055 location during the period of
      September 8, 2018 to the present who (1) worked more than
      40 hours during one or more workweeks, and (2) were not
      paid for all overtime hours worked by virtue of having
      their time edited;" and

   -- The "Rule 23 Time Rounding Class"

      "All present and former hourly manufacturing employees of
      Aviva Metals, Inc. at Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 5311 West River
      Rd. N., Lorain, OH 44055 location during the period of
      September 8, 2018 to the present who (1) worked more than
      40 hours during one or more workweeks, and (2) were not
      paid for all overtime hours worked by virtue of having
      their time rounded pursuant to Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 10-
      minute rounding policy."

The FLSA Subclasses -- which mirror the Rule 23 Subclasses except
as to durational scope – are:

   -- The "FLSA Time Editing Class"

      "All present and former hourly manufacturing employees of
      Aviva Metals, Inc. at Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 5311 West River
      Rd. N., Lorain, OH 44055 location during the period of
      September 8, 2017 to the present who (1) worked more than
      40 hours during one or more workweeks, and (2) were not
      paid for all overtime hours worked by virtue of having
      their time edited;" and

   -- The "FLSA Time Rounding Class"

      "All present and former hourly manufacturing employees of
      Aviva Metals, Inc. at Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 5311 West River
      Rd. N., Lorain, OH 44055 location during the period of
      September 8, 2017 to the present who (1) worked more than
      40 hours during one or more workweeks, and (2) were not
      paid for all overtime hours worked by virtue of having
      their time rounded pursuant to Aviva Metals, Inc.'s 10-
      minute rounding policy."

The Plaintiffs' Class and Collective Action Complaint, filed on
behalf of the Plaintiffs Dorsey and Murphy and all others similarly
situated, was filed on September 8, 2020.

Aviva is a metal alloy manufacturer that converts scrap metal into
a molten state with furnaces, produces metal bars and other shapes,
and operates a machine shop that shapes metals. Aviva employs
manufacturing workers in furtherance of its business purpose.

These workers don protective and other equipment as directed by
Aviva, spend time walking to work areas, meet with other workers
and/or supervisors to discuss their job duties for the day and
perform other job activities for which -- as a direct result of
Aviva's time editing -- they are not paid. Aviva's management also
regularly edits the times workers report they stop working,
resulting in the underpayment of overtime wages. As to the Time
Editing Subclasses, there can be no genuine dispute that the time
manipulation policies uniformly apply across the board.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kqOBIZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, 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

BAYER CORPORATION: Maiorino Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Maiorino, Individually on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bayer Corporation,
Elanco Animal Health, Inc., PHV DAVID A. GOODWIN, Case No.
2:21-cv-07579, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Aug. 23, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04450 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Bayer AG -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational
pharmaceutical and life sciences company and one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC
          ONE LIBERTY PLACE
          1650 MARKET STREET, 52ND FLOOR
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Status: (215) 496-0999
          Email: sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          PATRICK HOWARD, ESQ.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
          1650 MARKET ST., 52ND FL
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3895
          Email: phoward@smbb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph H. Blum, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3115
          Status: (215) 278-2594
          Email: jblum@shb.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Sullivan
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5146
          Email: tsullivan@morganlewis.com


BAYERHEALTHCARE LLC: Bomwell Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rhonda Bomwell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bayerhealthcare, LLC formerly
doing business as Bayer Animal Health Division; BAYER U.S. LLC
formerly doing business as Bayer Animal Health Division; Bayer
Corporation agent of Bayer Animal Health Division; Elanco Animal
Health, Inc. also known as: PETBASICS; ELANCO U.S., INC. also known
as: PETBASICS; Case No. 2:21-cv-09479, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 23,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04485 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Bayer Healthcare LLC -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- discovers and
manufactures healthcare and medical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Robert Morrison, Esq.
          TADLER LAW LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 36th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (646) 924-1040
          Email: bmorrison@tadlerlaw.com

               - and -

          David Michael Estes, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 228-9898
          Email: destes@mskf.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph H. Blum, Esq>
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3115
          Status: (215) 278-2594
          Email: jblum@shb.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Sullivan
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5146
          Email: tsullivan@morganlewis.com


BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Ashbourne "Injury" Suit in N.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Co. The case is captioned as Ashbourne, et al. v. Beech-Nut
Nutrition Co., Case No.  1:21-cv-00887-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 6,
2021).

The lawsuit is brought over personal injury-related claims.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd.

Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation is a baby food company owned by the
Swiss branded consumer-goods firm Hero Group.[BN]

Plaintiffs Carrie Ashbourne, Jessica Conner, Brandy Daniels, Diego
Galeana, April Gillens, Jandrea Glenn, Elizabeth Hall, Amber Hogan,
Savanna Jarrell, Laszlo Kovacs, Cori Lau, Michelle Lyles, Christina
Martinson, Chey'na Micciche, Julia Milton, Ashley Morgan, Michael
Morrow, Chris Nalley, Gladys Okolo, Jessica Reed, Soraya Santos,
Kira Spurgeon, Lidia Tilahun, Jennifer Weiss and Janice Wilson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM CO. LPA
          372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
          Westwood, NJ 07675
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com

BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berghoff
International, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Berghoff
International, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07081 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22,
2021).

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

Berghoff International, Inc. -- https://www.shopberghoff.com/ --
was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the
wholesale distribution of home furnishings and housewares.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


BLUE CROSS: Brent S. Files Suit in D. Utah
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Massachusetts, et al. The case is styled as Brent S.,
Angie S., J. B., R. B., A. F., C. S., H. S., individually and as
representatives of the class of similarly situated individuals v.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Massachusetts HMO Blue, Case No. 2:21-mc-00502-RJS (D.
Utah, Aug. 23, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Compel.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts --
https://www.bluecrossma.org/ -- is a state-licensed nonprofit
private health insurance company under the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association with headquarters in Boston.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING PC
          42c E. South Temple, Ste., 420
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 532-1739
          Email: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Mala M. Rafik, Esq.
          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
          ROSENFELD & RAFIK, P.C.
          184 HIGH ST, STE 503
          BOSTON, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 723-7470

               - and -

          Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 CENTURY PARK E STE 2100
          LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Email: esams@glancylaw.com


BROCO LLC: Faces Alonzo ADA Suit in Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broco LLC, et al. The
case is captioned as Thuy Thanh Alonzo v. Broco LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:21-cv-06385-GW-PD (C.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
demanding $5 Million.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

The Defendants include Broco LLC, doing business as: Blue Ribbon
Restaurants, and Does 1 to 10 inclusive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit in
Tennessee.

In June 2020, the Company and several current and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in
the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The lawsuit
asserts that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies that caused the Company's stock price to be
artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020.

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the result of this
or any other legal proceedings, the Company believes the
allegations in the suit are without merit and does not expect this
matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Between October 2020 and June 2021, alleged stockholders of the
Company filed several stockholder derivative lawsuits in the
federal courts for the Middle District of Tennessee and the
District of Delaware, asserting claims on behalf of the Company
against certain current and former officers and directors for
alleged breaches of duties owed to the Company. The complaints
refer to the securities lawsuit described above and incorporate
substantively similar allegations.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is an operator of senior living
communities throughout the United States. The Company is committed
to providing senior living solutions primarily within properties
that are designed, purpose-built, and operated to provide quality
service, care, and living accommodations for residents. The Company
operates and manages independent living, assisted living, memory
care, and continuing care retirement communities. The Company also
offers a range of home health, hospice, and outpatient therapy
services to residents of many of its communities and to seniors
living outside of its communities. The Company is based in
Brentwood, Tennessee.


CALIFORNIA STATE: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Downing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGHAN DOWNING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY d/b/a CAL STATE LA; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03067-FMO-JC (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California grants the parties' joint motion to
dismiss the action.

On July 26, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the
action with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Upon due consideration, good cause appearing, Judge Olguin grants
the joint motion and dismisses the action with prejudice as to the
Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the
Plaintiff's class claims with respect to any absent putative class
member. Each party must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate all pending matters,
vacate all deadlines, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5r4usvhu from Leagle.com.


CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Seeks August 30 Extension of Class Cert. Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, JUSTIN
LONGO, LOIS SPATZ, EAVEN SPATZ, RAINA POMEROY, and MAXWELL NASSAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC. and BYL COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its unopposed motion for extension of time
to respond to class certification through and including August 30,
2021 and award any other relief the court deems just and proper.

On August 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class
Certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(c), parties may respond
to a motion for class certification within 21 days of the filing of
same. Therefore, BYL's response is due today, August 23, 2021. Due
to deadlines in other matters, BYL is in need of an additional 7
days within which to file its response. No party will be unduly
prejudiced by the granting of the relief sought in this Motion.
This Motion is not being filed for purposes of delay, the Defendant
says.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kmlZQX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Helaine Jones, Esq.
          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, LLC
          SunTrust Financial Center
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: heather@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
                  billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
                  amanda@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com

               - and -

          Justin Levine, Esq.
          Katherine Eileen Herald, Esq.
          Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA
          Esperante Building
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          justin.levine@csklegal.com
          katherine.herald@csklegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Seth A. Kolton, Esq.
          SHENDELL & POLLOCK, P.L.
          2700 N Military Trail, Suite 150
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Telephone: (561) 241-2323
          Facsimile: (561) 241-2330
          E-mail:L seth@shendellpollock.com
                   anita@shendellpollock.com
                   grs@shendellpollock.com

CARE.COM INC: Skelton TCPA Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHELBY SKELTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CARE.COM, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02086, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 19,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-11360-WGY to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an
attempt to promote its services without prior express written
consent.

Care.com, Inc. is a service company that connects consumers with
caregivers, based in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
        
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by September 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08332 (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer entered an order on
Aug. 23, 2021 granting the Defendants' request to file the
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by
September 6, 2021.

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services is a debt collection agency.[CC]



CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces Perez Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Portfolio
Control, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as PEREZ v. CENTRAL
PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-14891-ES-AME
(D.N.J., Aug. 6, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

Central Portfolio Control is a debt collection agency.

The Defendants include Central Portfolio Control, Inc. and JH
Liquidating Trust I.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

COLT BBQ: Kapzynski Files Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Kapzynski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Colt BBQ & Spirits LLC d/b/a Colt Grill, Case No. 3:21-cv-08040-MTL
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
      and discovery;

   2. directing Colt Grill to produce to Collective Counsel the
      contact information for each putative class member within
      10 days of the Court's order;

   3. directing that judicial notice be sent to all putative
      class members;

   4. approving their proposed notice and consent forms;

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for putative class
      members to join the case;

   6. directing the mailing, e-mailing, and text messaging of
      notice, along with a reminder notice;

   7. permitting Collective Counsel to contact by telephone
      those putative collective members whose contact
      information is not valid; and

   8. directing Colt Grill to post the Notice and Consent forms
      in Colt Grill's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in
      period.

The Plaintiff contends that Colt Grill failed to pay its hourly
employees overtime wages required under federal law. Colt Grill
instead maintained a uniform practice of paying these employees
straight-time-for-overtime. This practice flagrantly violates the
Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kapzynski seeks to allow his
coworkers -- other hourly employees subject to the same illegal pay
practice  -- to receive notice of this collective action.
Kapzynski's evidence meets and surpasses the Ninth Circuit's
lenient standard for conditional

Colt Grill owns and operates several restaurant locations. It
employs a staff of cooks, pit masters, and other front and back of
house employees. As a standard practice, however, none of these
workers are paid an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

Instead, Kapzynski, and many other Colt Grill workers have been
paid straight-time for any hours worked over 40 in a week. The
straight-time-for-overtime pay is as straightforward an FLSA
violation as their pay records make clear, the Plaintiff adds.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jdZGOb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
           Jason P. Hoelscher, Esq.
           PARMET PC
           3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
           Houston, TX 77056
           Telephone: (713) 999 5228
           E-mail: jhoelscher@shhlaw.com
                    matt@parmet.law

                - and -

           SICO HOELSCHER HARRIS LLP
           802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 900
           Corpus Christi, TX 98401
           Telephone: (361) 653 3300
           Facsimile: (361) 653 3333

CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT: Partly Compelled to Show Call Data in Yates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VIVIAN YATES, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER ADJUSTMENT
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01605-AGF (E.D. Mo.),
Judge Audrey F. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendant to produce
certain call data relating to her putative class action claims.

The Plaintiff in the putative class action claims that Defendant
Consumer Adjustment Co., Inc. ("CACi") made automated, prerecorded
debt collection calls to consumers without consent, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of: All persons
or entities within the United States who (1) within four (4) years
of the commencement of this action, (2) received a nonemergency
telephone call from CACi regarding a debt allegedly owed to CACi,
(3) to a cellular telephone line, (4) through the use of an ATDS or
an artificial or prerecorded voice (5) where CACi did not have
express consent to call said cellular telephone number.

The matter is now before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to
compel the Defendant to produce certain call data relating to her
putative class action claims. Specifically, she asserts that CACi's
call logs for at least four of its six calls to her reflect the
notation "CACi_MessageOnly" in the "service" field and include a
"blast" directive in the "campaign" field, such as "thblast",
"teamblast", "thmedblast", "thblaste."

The Plaintiff further asserts that the account notes for these
calls show her telephone number described in three different ways;
"third party", "WRONG NUMBER" and "WN," with the "CACi Result Code
Report" confirming that the "WN" description means "WRONG/NO GOOD
NUMBER." The Plaintiff further asserts that on Oct. 2, 2020, after
she called CACi and CACi confirmed that they were calling a "wrong
number" and would remove her number, CACi's call logs for the
Plaintiff's cell phone number changed in status from "Unknown" to
"Bad" under the comment field.

The Plaintiff now seeks to compel similar data for the putative
class members.

Originally, the Plaintiff's request for production asked for:
"REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: The complete database tables showing
(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
telephone number (3) CACi, (or a third party on CACi's behalf)
placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using the same dialing
system(s) used to call Plaintiffs or an artificial or prerecorded
voice (5) within 4 years of the complaint (6) where CACi did not
have express consent to call said cellular telephone number. If
this request is impossible to satisfy, produce electronic
information in CSV format sufficient to show as much of the
following as possible: (a) all calls made by or on CACi's behalf,
at any time during the relevant time period, using the system used
to call 813-777-6648, (b) the telephone number to which each such
call was made, (c) the phone type (e.g. cell, work, or home), (d)
the script for any artificial or prerecorded message used in the
call, (e) the name of the person called, (f) disposition codes for
each call, (g) the date and time of each call, (h) the name and
address of each person called, (i) whether the person called had
previously asked that they not be called, and (j) whether the
person called was not the person alleged to owe the debt in
question."

CACi objected to this request on the bases that it was premature,
as no class has been certified; that it improperly requested the
personal identifying information of putative class members; and
that it sought confidential and proprietary information.

During the parties' meet-and-confer, the Plaintiff offered to
narrow the request to records that contain notations of "unknown,
status changed from unknown to bad, WN, +++++ and any other code,
documentation or notation that evidences calls made with an ATDS or
pre-recorded voice, artificial voice without consent." However,
CACi argues that, even as narrowed, the request is not proportional
to the needs of the case because the documents would be irrelevant
to the Plaintiff's legal claims.

Upon careful consideration of the parties' arguments, in light of
the proportionality concerns set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Fleissig grants the Plaintiff's
motion in part. The primary case relied upon by CACi for the
proposition that classwide discovery is premature, Oppenheimer
Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 353 (1978), is inapposite. In
that case, unlike the instant, the plaintiff sought class members'
personal identifying information such as names and addresses in
order "to enable them to send the class notice, and not for any
other purpose." The Supreme Court held that such a request is not
within the scope of Rule 26. But the Court expressly noted that it
did "not hold that class members' names and addresses never can be
obtained under the discovery rules" and that "there may be
instances where this information could be relevant to issues that
arise under Rule 23, or where a party has reason to believe that
communication with some members of the class could yield
information bearing on these or other issues."

The Plaintiff's request, as modified, has been issued for the
express purpose of illuminating Rule 23 issues, such as numerosity,
typicality, and commonality. Whether she will successfully
establish that these Rule 23 factors have been satisfied is a
question for another day, after her motion to certify the class has
been filed. But at this stage, Judge Fleissig finds that the
Plaintiff has shown the relevance of the records. And CACi has not
shown it would be unduly burdensome to produce the requested
information, as narrowed. The Judge also agrees with the Plaintiff
that any confidentiality concerns are likely adequately addressed
by the existing Stipulated Protective Order. However, she also
orders the parties to meet and confer to determine whether
additional protective measures are required.

Accordingly, Judge Fleissig granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to compel as set forth. The motion is granted as
to the narrowed discovery request described in the Defendant's
response brief. The parties will meet and confer in good faith
regarding the prompt production of this information, subject to the
existing Stipulated Protective Order and any additional protective
measures as appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yenz8zz6 from Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL CENTRAL: Faces Brever FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Central
Credit of Massachusetts, Inc. The case is captioned as Brever v.
Continental Central Credit of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No.
7:21-cv-06637-VB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

Continental Central is a third party collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
                  ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

CONVERSE ELECTRIC: Must File Class Cert. Response by September 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lonnie Jones, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. Converse Electric, Inc.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01830-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey
M. Vascura entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed
motion for extension of time to file its Response to Plaintiff's
Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification.

The Defendant shall file its response on or before September 7,
2021, Judge Vascura says.

Converse Electric provides electrical contracting services. The
Company offers value engineering, new construction, remodels and
additions.

A copy of the Court's order dated August 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcHVP2 at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT CORP: Asbury FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Randy Asbury, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Credit Corp Solutions, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 21cvs1479 was removed from the Davidson
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on August 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00650 to the
proceeding.

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

Credit Corp Solutions -- https://www.creditcorponline.com/ -- is a
receivables management company that purchases and collects consumer
debt including unpaid retail finance, sales finance credit cards
and personal loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher George Smith, Esq.
          SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL AND JERNIGAN
          PO Box 2611
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Phone: (919) 821-1220
          Fax: (919) 821-6800
          Email: csmith@smithlaw.com


CROWN CASTLE: Putative Class Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Crown Castle International Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered an
order dismissing the consolidated putative securities class suit
entitled, In re Crown Castle International Corp. Securities
Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-02156

In February and March 2020, putative securities class action suits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current officers.


The lawsuits were filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of the Company between February 26, 2018
and February 26, 2020.

The allegations concerned allegedly false or misleading statements
or other alleged failures to disclose information about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and the award of the
plaintiffs' costs and expenses incurred.

In December 2020, the cases were consolidated as In re Crown Castle
International Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-02156 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On June 3, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, and, on June 14, 2021,
the court entered an order effectuating that dismissal.

Crown Castle International Corp. owns, operates and leases shared
wireless infrastructure, including towers and other structures like
rooftops and small cell networks supported by fiber. The
Houston-based Company's wireless infrastructure is geographically
dispersed throughout the U.S., including Puerto Rico. The company
is based in Houston, Texas.


CURA CA: Stahr Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM STAHR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CURA CA LLC, Case No. 19CECG03846, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01491-JAM-KJN to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising
Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act by failing to disclose the correct amount of
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on its Select Elite THC vaporizer
cartridges.

Cura CA LLC is a cannabis company doing business in California.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
        
         Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
         JENNER & BLOCK LLP
         633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-5100
         Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
         E-mail: asmith@jenner.com

CUSTOM DESIGN: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Salinas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SALINAS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. CUSTOM DESIGN FUR CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV28990
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 5, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
current and former Employees within the State of California who, at
any time four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, are or
were employed as non-exempt, hourly resident building managers by
the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of
them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and
California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these
violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremi anlaw.com
                  roman@yeremi anlaw.com

DAME PRODUCTS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dame Products Inc.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Dame Products Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07082 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2021).

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

Dame Products -- https://www.dameproducts.com/ -- is a sexual
wellness brand with the purpose of making phenomenal sex toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


DIGITAL RECOGNITION: Mata Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Guillermo Mata, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc.,
Case No. 37-02021-00023321-CU-MC-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court - County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Aug. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01485-JLS-BLM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Digital Recognition Network (DRN) -- https://drndata.com/ --
provides vehicle location data and analytics for Financial
Services, Insurance and Auto Recovery clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lily E. Hough, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 212-9300
          Email: lhough@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nancy L. Stagg, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          12255 El Camino Real, Suite 250
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 350-6156
          Fax: (858) 350-6111
          Email: nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com


ELANCO ANIMAL: Levensten Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevin Levensten, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated,
Bayer Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-02364, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug.
20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04445 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Elanco -- https://www.elanco.com/en-us -- is a world leader in
developing innovative products and solutions that enhance animal
health, empowering the people that raise and care for animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Levensten, Esq.
          THE LEVENSTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          346 S. 15th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 545-5600
          Email: sdl@levenstenlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph H. Blum, Esq>
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3115
          Status: (215) 278-2594
          Email: jblum@shb.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Sullivan
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5146
          Email: tsullivan@morganlewis.com


ELIZABETH OSTENDORF: Faces Carr FLSA Suit in District of Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elizabeth Ostendorf,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Brian James Carr v. Elizabeth
Ostendorf, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02147-RBJ (D. Colo., Aug.
9, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and is
assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson.

The Defendants include Elizabeth Ostendorf, LLC, doing business as:
Colorado Behavior and Learning Group, and Elizabeth Mary
Ostendorf.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
          BROWN LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

ENVESTNET INC: Bid to Junk Wesch Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Deborah Wesch,
is pending.

The Company and Yodlee  Inc. were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah
Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs. The case
caption is Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-05991-SK.

Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial
transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a
mobile application that uses Yodlee's application programming
interfaces (API), and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee
unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties.

The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and
common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal
statutes, including the Stored Communications Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide
class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in
credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner
from 2014 to the present.

The Company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant
in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions
to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint. On February 16,
2021, the district court granted in part and denied in part
Yodlee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the
plaintiffs leave to further amend.

The court reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and
granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district court
had dismissed. The second amended complaint did not allege any
claims against the Company or Yodlee that were not previously
alleged in first amended complaint.

On May 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted against it in the second amended complaint, and Yodlee
filed a motion to dismiss most claims asserted against it in the
second amended complaint.

On July 19, 2021, the court granted in part Yodlee's motion,
resulting in the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the
state-law claims.

The Company's motion to dismiss is pending.

The Company and Yodlee will continue to vigorously defend the
claims against it.

Envestnet, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide open-architecture
wealth management services and technology to independent financial
advisors and financial institutions. The Company provides these
services and related technology via its wealth management
software.


ENVESTNET INC: Bid to Nix Drake Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Envestnet Asset
Management, Inc.'s motion to dismiss filed in  Drake v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-CV-02076-ACA, is pending.

The Company's subsidiary, Envestnet Asset Management, Inc. (EAM),
has been named as a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits
filed on December 28, 2020 and March 4, 2021, respectively, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.


The case captions are Drake v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:20-CV-02076-ACA and Ferguson v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
et al, No. 2:19-CV-01135-MHH.

The material allegations of both cases are identical. The plaintiff
alleges that EAM, acting as investment advisor to BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.'s Compass SmartInvestor 401(k) Plan (the
"SmartInvestor Plan"), along with BBVA and others, breached its
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the selection and maintenance
of the SmartInvestor Plan's investment options.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
SmartInvestor Plan participants from July 17, 2013 through December
28, 2020.

EAM has asked the court to dismiss the Drake lawsuit against it on
grounds that it is not properly named as a defendant in the lawsuit
and it further believes, along with BBVA, that the claims are
without merit.

The Ferguson case has been stayed by the court until the Drake
court decides whether that case should continue, and if so, whether
the two cases should be consolidated before one court.

EAM will continue to vigorously defend the claims against it.

Envestnet, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide open-architecture
wealth management services and technology to independent financial
advisors and financial institutions. The Company provides these
services and related technology via its wealth management
software.


FABER & BRAND: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought in Turner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY TURNER v. FABER &
BRAND, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00030-DJN (E.D. Va.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting class
certification and preliminary approval of class settlement.

Faber provides legal solutions to the collection industry since
1998.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WlJ5yK at no extra charge.[CC]

The counsel for Plaintiff Turner are:

          Dale W. Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN , P.C.
          The Eliza Spotswood House
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
          Telephone: (804) 861-6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Thomas D. Domonoske, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES , P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23606
          (540) 442-8616
          Telephone: tom@clalegal.com

Counsel for Faber & Brand. LLC, Jared L. Buchanan and Jeremey
Forrest, are:

          Charles M. Sims, Esq.
          C. Quinn Adams, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 400
          Richmond, Virginia 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7100
          Facsimile: (804) 403-7110
          E-mail: CSims@ohaganmeyer.com
                  CAdams@ohaganmeyer.com

Counsel for Petersburg Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Southside
Regional Medical Center and Professional Account Services, Inc.,
are:

          Stephen H. Sherman, Esq.
          MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
          20 F. Street, NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 2001

FARMGIRL FLOWERS: Fails to Pay Wages, Aguilar Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS AGUILAR, MARIA ALCAZAR, LIZYETTE SALGADO and ELPIDIA ALCAZAR
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FARMGIRL FLOWERS, INC., a California Corporation; CHRISTINA
STEMBEL; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG21109817
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 5, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay wages for all hours worked, failed to pay
overtime wages, and failed to  provide mandatory meal-and-rest
breaks in violation of the California Labor Code and the California
WARN Act.

Mr. Aguilar is a current resident of Watsonville, California. He
was employed by Defendants as a labor specialist/fulfillment
employee from September 2020 through June 29, 2021.

Ms. Alcazar is a current resident of Watsonville, California. She
was employed by Defendants as a design employee from May 2020
through June 29, 2021.

Ms. Lizvette Salgado is a current resident of Watsonville,
California. She was employed by Defendants as a processing employee
from May 2020 to June 29, 2021.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants when the Watsonville
location closed without notice in violation of Cal-WARN.

Allegedly, the Plaintiffs were not paid for all hours worked
(including at the correct rate), were not provided all complaint
meal periods and were not authorized and permitted all and rest
breaks during the Class Period. They were also not reimbursed for
business expenses including for use of their personal cell phones
and electronic devices.

The Defendants are in a floral e-commerce business delivering
flowers across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          BISNARICHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  isilvers@bisnarchase.com

               - and -

          Richard C. Alpers, Esq.
          ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC
          950 E. Blanco Rd., No. 103
          Salinas, CA 93901
          Telephone: (831) 240-0490
          Facsimile: (855) 870-1129
          E-mail: rca@alperslawgroup.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Allred Putative Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago
Title Ins. Co.

On February 24, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., was filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County for
the State of California.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory, treble, and
punitive damages.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., incorporated on May 24, 2005, is
a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance,
and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.

FLINT, MI: Bid for Class Certification in Water Cases Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases, Case No.
5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Class Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

This Opinion and Order relates to Case No. 16-10444.

The Class Plaintiffs in the case are thousands of children,
property owners, business owners, and other individuals who allege
that they were exposed to lead and other contaminants from the City
of Flint's municipal water supply. The Defendants in the case are
two professional engineering firms that advised the City of Flint
regarding its water supply at various points from 2011 through
2015. The events that resulted in the large scale municipal water
contamination of Flint, Michigan are now known as the Flint Water
Crisis. In their lawsuits, putative class members allege that
Defendants caused, prolonged, concealed, ignored, and/or downplayed
the risks of Class Plaintiffs' exposure to the City's water, which
injured Class Plaintiffs and damaged their property and commercial
interests.

The Flint Water Cases have a complex procedural history. The cases
fall into several broad categories, in both federal and state
court, including individual cases, legionella cases, and putative
class action cases initially filed in 2016 -- from which this
request for class certification is an outgrowth. As the number of
cases grew, the Court appointed Co-Liaison Counsel for the
individual cases to coordinate between the various cases with
individually represented counsel, and it appointed Interim Co-Lead
Class Counsel to represent the interests of the putative class.

The Court has adjudicated scores of motions to dismiss in the Flint
Water Cases, has issued hundreds of opinions and orders, and is
very familiar with the factual allegations and the applicable law.
Many of its decisions have been appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and to the United States Supreme
Court. The Court's decisions have largely been upheld on appeal.

The Court has also managed extensive discovery in these cases. Over
the years, the Court has conducted conferences to adjudicate
discovery disputes at least once per month and is therefore
familiar with the development of the factual record in these cases.
As Class Plaintiffs stated at one time, discovery "has been
substantial, including millions of pages of document production and
review, the exchange of substantive written interrogatories, more
than 80 depositions, and extensive expert analysis." In sum, the
Flint Water Cases are abundant, complex, and have been intensely
litigated for the last several years.

The Class Plaintiffs now seek certification of a "Master" Issues
Class -- as well as a VNA-specific Issues Subclass, a Damages and
Injunctive Subclass consisting entirely of minors, and two separate
Damages Subclasses consisting of residential property owners and
business owners, respectively -- to pursue joint claims of
professional negligence against the two engineering firms they
allege are liable for the injuries they suffered from the Flint
Water Crisis. The Class Plaintiffs initially sued many individuals
and entities, but the class certification motion involves only
claims for professional negligence against LAN and VNA, two
professional engineering firms, collectively referred to as
"Defendants" or the "Engineering Defendants." LAN performed work as
a consultant related to the City's transition to the Flint River
and continued to advise the City on water quality issues during the
Crisis. VNA also performed water consultancy work, but only after
the transition and for a limited time (from early January 2015 to
March 2015).

The Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
July 16, 2020. The Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
asks that the Court (1) certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), a "Master" Issues
Class and four Subclasses: a VNA Issues Subclass, a Minors Damages
and Injunctive Subclass, a Residential Property Damages Subclass,
and a Business Damages Subclass; (2) appoints the named Plaintiffs
as Class Representatives; (3) appoints, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(g), Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel ("Class
Counsel") Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt as Co-Lead Class
Counsel; and (4) formally appoints, pursuant to Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 23(g), Interim Executive Committee members Stephen E.
Morrissey, Paul F. Novak, Esther Berezofsky, Peretz Bronstein, and
Teresa A. Bingman to serve the Class.

Also before the Court are the Daubert motions filed by Defendants
Veolia, LLC; Veolia, Inc.; and Veolia Water ("VNA") and Lockwood,
Andrews & Newnam, PC; Lockwood Andrews & Newnam, Inc.; and the Leo
A. Daly Company "LAN") seeking to exclude the expert testimony and
reports of all experts relied upon by the Class Plaintiffs in their
motion for class certification.

The Individual Plaintiffs are not seeking to be represented by the
Class, as well as Defendants LAN and VNA, responded in January
2021. The Class Plaintiffs replied on April 7, 2021.

The Class Plaintiffs rely on 14 retained experts for their motion
for class certification. Defendants LAN and VNA filed a combined
total of 15 Daubert motions seeking to exclude the testimony and
reports of all of these experts. On May 19, 2021, the Court heard
oral argument on the motions to exclude the testimony and reports
of the two experts whose testimony impacts the pertinent liability
portion of the class certification motion: Dr. Larry Russell and
Dr. Paolo Gardoni.

On June 2, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the class
certification motion via video teleconference. The Honorable Joseph
J. Farah of Genesee County Circuit Court was also in attendance.
During the hearing, the Class Plaintiffs' counsel agreed that
redefinition and clarification of the proposed "Master" Issues
Class and four Subclasses was appropriate. Accordingly, on June 4,
2021, the Court ordered Class Plaintiffs to submit amended class
definitions, as well as to confirm whether they were seeking
damages for a personal injury class of adults. On June 14, 2021,
the Class Plaintiffs submitted their updated class definitions and
clarified that they were not seeking personal injury damages for
adults. VNA responded on June 28, 2021. LAN did not respond. The
Class Plaintiffs replied on July 6, 2021.

Law and Analysis

A. Class Definitions

The "Master" Issues Class and four Subclasses are: a VNA Issues
Subclass, a Minors Damages and Injunctive Subclass, a Residential
Property Damages Subclass, and a Business Damages Subclass. The
Class Plaintiffs' proposed definitions are as follows:

     a. Master Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)): "All persons and
entities who, for any period of time between April 25, 2014 and
January 5, 2016, were exposed to or purchased drinking water
supplied by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of
Flint, or owned or operated a business in the City of Flint."
Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through drinking
or consuming foods prepared with drinking water) as well as any
form of physical contact with the water (including contact with
residential plumbing and other appliances as well as human contact
by way of bathing).

     b. VNA Issues Subclass (Rule (23(c)(4)): "All persons and
entities who, for any period of time between February 15, 2015 and
January 5, 2016, were exposed to or purchased drinking water
supplied by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of
Flint, or owned or operated a business in the City of Flint."
Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either through drinking
or consuming foods prepared with drinking water) as well as any
form of physical contact with the water (including contact with
residential plumbing and other appliances as well as human contact
by way of bathing).

     c. Residential Property Damages Subclass (Rule 23b)(3)): All
persons and entities who owned residential property within the City
of Flint at any time during the period from April 25, 2014 through
December 14, 2015.

     d. Business Damages Subclass (Rule 23(b)(3))" All persons and
entities who, as of April 25, 2014 owned and operated a business
within the City of Flint that falls within one of the following
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:
812111, 812112, 812113, 812990, and 722511."

     e. Minors Damages and Injunctive Subclass (Rule 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3)): "All children who, during the period from May 1, 2014 to
January 5, 2016, were (a) in utero or between the ages of 0 to 10
years old, (b) lived in an identified residence or attended an
identified school or day care, and (c) were exposed through
ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water at such residence,
school, or day care for at least 14 days within a 90 day period."
Exposed through ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water means
the child (or their mother) was exposed to unfiltered tap water for
at least 14 days during a 90 day period between May 1, 2014 and
January 5, 2016, through any combination of the following ways: (1)
For childhood exposure: the child drank unfiltered Flint tap water
(or beverages prepared with unfiltered tap water, including infant
formula), and/or ate food prepared with unfiltered tap water; and
(2) For in utero exposure, the mother drank unfiltered Flint tap
water (or beverages prepared with unfiltered tap water), and/or ate
food prepared with unfiltered Flint tap water, while pregnant.

Judge Levy opines that all of the Class Plaintiffs' proposed
Subclasses are uncertifiable as a matter of law, and so he will not
redefine them. However, the proposed Issues Classes are certifiable
if redefined. Accordingly, with the benefit of multiple rounds of
briefing and extensive oral argument on the subject of class
definitions, and mindful of the Court's "obligation to create a new
definition sua sponte if the parties' own proposals are not
adequate or accurate," the Judge will redefine the Class
Plaintiffs' two proposed Issues Classes as follows:

      a. Multi-Defendant Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)): "All persons
and entities who, for any period of time between February 4, 2015
and October 16, 2015, were exposed to or purchased drinking water
supplied by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of
Flint, or owned or operated a business in the City of Flint."

            Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either
through drinking or consuming foods prepared with the drinking
water), bodily contact with the water (such as by way of bathing),
and property contact with the water (through residential plumbing
or other appliances). Persons are defined to include only those
individuals who have reached the age of majority as of the date of
the class notice.

      b. LAN Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)): "All persons and
entities who, for any period of time between April 25, 2014 and
October 16, 2015, were exposed to or purchased drinking water
supplied by the City of Flint, owned real property in the City of
Flint, or owned or operated a business in the City of Flint."

            Exposure is defined to include ingestion (either
through drinking or consuming foods prepared with the drinking
water), bodily contact with the water (such as by way of bathing),
and property contact with the water (through residential plumbing
or other appliances). Persons is defined to include only those
individuals who have reached the age of majority as of the date of
the class notice.

Judge Levy's definitions of the Multi-Defendant and LAN Issues
Classes are based on the Class Plaintiffs' latest proposed Issues
Class definitions, but they are modified as follows: (1) there will
be two Issues Classes to reflect the Engineering Defendants' two
different consulting timelines; (2) the Court modifies and
clarifies the Class Plaintiffs' proposed timelines for each Class;
and (3) the Court modifies and clarifies the Class Plaintiffs'
definition of the word "exposure."

First, Judge Levy certifies two Issues Classes that are
substantively identical, but that represent the two different
timelines in which each Defendant was actively consulting on the
City's water matters: LAN advised the City during the City's April
25, 2014 switch to the Flint River, whereas VNA did not begin its
consulting relationship with the City until Feb. 4, 2015.

Second, the Judge amends the time period for the Multi-Defendant
Issues Class to Feb. 4, 2015 through Oct. 16, 2015. As she stated,
the Feb. 4, 2015 beginning date reflects the time by which both the
Defendants were unquestionably consulting on -- and therefore
potentially liable for -- the Flint Water Crisis. The Oct. 16, 2015
end date reflects the time by which the City of Flint reconnected
to the Detroit water source. The Judge adopts this end date because
it was consistently proposed by the Class Plaintiffs until they
submitted their Memorandum 16. As noted, Feb. 4, 2015 is the date
that VNA signed a contract agreeing to "provide consulting services
related to the Flint Water Treatment System updates for the City of
Flint."

Finally, the Judge modifies the Class Plaintiffs' updated
definition of "exposure" that appears in the Multi-Defendant and
LAN Issues Classes. The Class Plaintiffs' most recent proposal
defines "exposure" to include "any form of physical contact with
the water (including contact with residential plumbing and other
appliances as well as human contact by way of bathing)."

Judge Levy makes these three modifications to the Class Plaintiffs'
proposed definitions for clarity and in an effort to "be vigilant
to ensure that a certified class is properly constituted." Such
modifications, she says, are within the Court's clear statutory
authority.

B. Certification of the Minors Damages and Injunctive Subclass is
Impermissible Under Federal and Michigan Law

The Class Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a Minors Damages and
Injunctive Subclass encompassing "tens of thousands" of children
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).

They define the proposed Subclass as follows: "All children who,
during the period from May 1, 2014 to January 5, 2016, were (a) in
utero or between the ages of 0 to 10 years old, (b) lived in an
identified residence or attended an identified school or day care,
and (c) were exposed through ingestion to unfiltered Flint public
water at such residence, school or day care for at least 14 days
within a 90-day period."

Exposed through ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water means
the child (or their mother) was exposed to unfiltered tap water for
at least 14 days during a 90-day period between May 1, 2014 and
Jan. 5, 2016, through any combination of the following ways: (1)
For childhood exposure: the child drank unfiltered Flint tap water
(or beverages prepared with unfiltered tap water, including infant
formula), and/or ate food prepared with unfiltered tap water; (2)
For in utero exposure, the mother drank unfiltered Flint tap water
(or beverages prepared with unfiltered tap water), and/or ate food
prepared with unfiltered Flint tap water, while pregnant.

Judge Levy holds that certification of the Minors Subclass as a
Rule 230:0(3) Damages Class is impermissible because doing so would
violate federal and Michigan law. The Class Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that the Court could certify a class of minors without
violating the minors' substantive rights under Michigan law to
bring, settle, and abrogate their own claims.

Additionally, certification of the Minors Subclass as a Rule
23(b)(2) injunctive class is impermissible because the primary
relief sought is monetary and contradicts the purpose of the Rule
23(b)(2) class device. While some medical monitoring injunction
requests may be appropriately forward-looking, the medical
monitoring injunction as framed in the case is ancillary to the
overarching goal of obtaining money damages for the Class
Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Judge denies Rule 23(b)(2)
certification of a Minors Subclass that seeks injunctive relief.

C. All Proposed Issues and Damages Classes Meet the Rule 23(a)
Prerequisites to Class Certification

In order to certify an issues or damages class, the Class
Plaintiffs must first show that each proposed class meets the four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of representation. Judge Levy finds that the Class
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that all proposed classes -- the
Multi-Defendant Issues Class, the LAN Issues Class, the Residential
Property Damages Subclass, and the Business Damages Subclass --
meet these requirements.

D. None of the Proposed Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Subclasses is
Certifiable

As she previously discussed, Judge Levy holds that the Class
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that all proposed classes meet the
Rule 23(a) prerequisites to class certification. For the Class
Plaintiffs' proposed Damages Subclasses, the next step is to
determine whether the Rule 23(b)(3) damages requirements are met.

The Class Plaintiffs' proposed remaining Damages Subclasses are:

     a. Residential Property Damages Subclass (Rule 23b)(3)): "All
persons and entities who owned residential property within the City
of Flint at any time during the period from April 25, 2014 through
December 14, 2015."

     b. Business Damages Subclass (Rule 23(b)(3)): "All persons and
entities who, as of April 25, 2014 owned and operated a business
within the City of Flint that falls within one of the following
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:
812111, 812112, 812113, 812990, and 722511."

Judge Levy holds that the Class Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that
their professional negligence cause of action as a whole is
appropriate for Rule 23(b)(3) class certification for any of the
proposed subclasses. Their professional negligence claim requires
that they demonstrate that: (1) LAN and VNA owed a duty to Class
Plaintiffs; (2) LAN and VNA breached that duty; (3) LAN's and VNA's
breach was the but-for and proximate cause of harm to Class
Plaintiffs; and (4) Class Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result.

While she agrees with the Class Plaintiffs that there are certain
factual questions and threshold liability issues pertaining to
professional negligence that are common to the proposed Classes as
a whole -- and that will be discussed in the section analyzing Rule
23(c)(4) issues class certification -- the Judge finds that
individualized issues and defenses overwhelm the cause of action
and defeat the predominance and superiority requirements, rendering
Rule 23(b)(3) damages class certification improper. Because the
Class Plaintiffs can show neither predominance nor superiority, the
Judge declines to address ascertainability.

Because the Class Plaintiffs do not show that the proposed Rule
23(b)(3) Damages Subclasses meet either the predominance or
superiority standards, the Judge need not address the implied
ascertainability requirement in concluding that it cannot certify
Class Plaintiffs' proposed Damages Subclasses.

E. Certification of the Rule 23(c)(4) Issues Classes

The Class Plaintiffs request that, should the Court "decide that
certain aspects of the claims in the matter are not appropriate for
class-wide resolution, for those subsections of the Class for whom
the Court does not choose to certify a damages class under
23(b)(3), the Court should certify an issues class to address
issues pertaining to Defendants' liability."

The two prospective Rule 23(c)(4) Issues Classes that Judge Levy
will consider for certification are the Multi-Defendant Issues
Class and the LAN Issues Subclass.

The Class Plaintiffs propose the following questions for
certification as to the Issues Classes: (i) Issue 1: Did
Defendants' contracts with the City create a duty of care to third
parties, and if so, what was the scope of that duty?; (ii) Issue 2:
What is the applicable standard of care in a professional
engineering case?; (iii) Issue 3: If Defendants' contracts created
a duty of care to third parties, did Defendants breach that duty by
failing to provide appropriate advice to the City of Flint
regarding treating the water?; (iv) Issue 4: Did Defendants'
conduct cause corrosive water conditions in the Flint water
distribution system?; (v) Issue 5: What is Defendants' role in
creating, exacerbating, and/or prolonging the contamination of the
City's water supply, including their involvement in the decisions
to switch to the Flint River as a water source, refrain from using
corrosion control at the Flint Water Treatment Plant (FTWP), and
conceal information related to the safety of the City's water
supply?; (vi) Issue 6: Were the corrosive water conditions
allegedly caused by Defendants capable of causing harm to Flint
residents, property, and businesses?; (vii) Issue 7: To what extent
were other actors at fault for causing corrosive water conditions
in the City water distribution system, and how should fault be
allocated among all those responsible?; (viii) Issue 8: Was it
foreseeable to Defendants that their conduct would cause corrosive
water conditions in the City water system?; and (ix) Issue 9: What,
if any, precautions should Defendants have taken to prevent the
resulting harm to human health and property?

Judge Levy certifies these nine questions for the Multi-Defendant
and the LAN Issues Classes. She holds that these questions address
core issues related to the factual underpinnings of the Defendants'
involvement in the Flint Water Crisis and directly address aspects
of duty, breach, and causation in the Class Plaintiffs'
professional negligence claim.

F. Daubert Motions

The Class Plaintiffs rely on 14 retained experts for their motion
for class certification. Defendants LAN and VNA filed a combined
total of 15 Daubert motions seeking to exclude all of them. On May
19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument regarding the Defendants'
motions to exclude the testimony and reports of the two Class
Plaintiffs' experts whose testimony impacts the liability portion
of the class certification motion: Dr. Larry Russell and Dr. Paolo
Gardoni.

Judge Levy denies the Daubert motions as to Dr. Russell (ECF Nos.
1382, 1388), grants in part and denies in part Daubert motions as
to Dr. Gardoni (ECF Nos. 1373, 1388), and denies as moot the
remaining Daubert motions (ECF Nos. 1371, 1372, 1374, 1376, 1377,
1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1383, 1'384, 1385).

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Levy granted in part and denied in
part the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Rhonda
Kelso, on behalf of herself and her minor child, K.E.K., as well as
Barbara and Darrell Davis, are designated as the Representatives of
the Multi-Defendant and the LAN Issues Classes. The Judge denied
the request to designate all other class representatives.

Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt are appointed as the
Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g). Interim Executive Committee members Stephen E. Morrissey,
Paul F. Novak, Esther Berezofsky, Peretz Bronstein, and Teresa A.
Bingman are appointed to serve the Multi-Defendant and LAN Issues
Classes as formal members of the Executive Committee pursuant to
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(g).

Judge Levy denied Defendants LAN's and VNA's Daubert motions as to
Dr. Larry Russell. She granted in part and denied in part
Defendants LAN's and VNA's Daubert motions as to Dr. Paolo Gardoni.
Finally, the Judge denied as moot the remaining Daubert motions
filed by Defendants LAN and VNA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fkvdcvz from Leagle.com.


FLUIDIGM CORP: Court Dismisses Saintjermain Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Fluidigm Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Reena
Saintjermain, et al. v. Fluidigm Corporation, et al., granted the
company's motion to dismiss.

In September 2020, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the
Company (also naming the company's Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer as defendants) in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Reena Saintjermain, et al.
v. Fluidigm Corporation, et al).

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in December
2020, and an amended complaint was filed on February 19, 2021.

The complaint, as amended, seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of persons and entities who acquired the company's
common stock between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019 and
alleges securities laws violations based on statements and alleged
omissions made by the Company during such period.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 5,
2021 and, on August 4, 2021, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss with leave to amend.

Fluidigm said, "We believe the claims alleged in the complaint lack
merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously."

Fluidigm Corporation is a global company that improves life through
comprehensive health insight. The company's innovative technologies
and multi-omic tools are used by researchers to reveal meaningful
insights into health and disease, identify biomarkers to inform
decisions, and accelerate the development of more effective
therapies. The company creates, manufactures, and markets a range
of products and services, including instruments, reagents and
software that are used by researchers and clinical labs worldwide.
The company is based in South San Francisco, California.


FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Suit in Texas Underway
----------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

Since May 2018, purported shareholders have filed various
complaints against Fluor and certain of its current and former
executives in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14,
2013 through February 14, 2020, and seek to recover damages arising
from alleged violations of federal securities laws.

These claims are based on statements concerning Fluor's internal
and disclosure controls, risk management, revenue recognition, and
Fluor's gas-fired power business, which plaintiffs assert were
materially misleading.

As of May 26, 2020, these complaints have been consolidated into
one matter.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the matter on July 1, 2020.
The motion was granted in part on May 5, 2021, and as a result the
Court dismissed with prejudice all allegations except those related
to a single statement made in 2015 about one gas-fired power
project.

Fluor said, "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate
outcome of this matter, we do not believe it is probable that a
loss will be incurred. Accordingly, we have not recorded any
liability as a result of this action."

Fluor Corporation through its subsidiaries, provides engineering,
procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization,
operation, maintenance and asset integrity, and project management
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy &
Chemicals; Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified
Services; and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and
is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FOREST RIVER: Forest River Seeks Manufacturing Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN GROSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOREST RIVER MANUFACTURING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00616 (N.D. Ind., August 19, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated manufacturing
employees appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for Forest River as a non-exempt manufacturing
employee at several locations in the State of Indiana from
approximately 2015 through the date of his voluntary resignation in
April 2021.

Forest River Manufacturing LLC is a manufacturer of recreational
vehicles, headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
         HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
         100 Cherry Street
         Terre Haute, IN 47807
         Telephone: (812) 232-9691
         Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
         E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

         Robi Baishnab, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         34 N. High St., Suite 502
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 318-9738
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                 - and –

         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

FUSION LEARNING: Murphy Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FUSION LEARNING, INC.; PETER RUPPERT;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV25131, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06732 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide employment records, failure to
pay overtime/double time, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay reporting time pay,
failure to pay split shift premiums, failure to timely pay wages
during employment, failure to timely pay wages at termination,
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time accrual.

Fusion Learning, Inc. is a provider of learning services based in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
        
         Scott J. Witlin, Esq.
         Caroline C. Dickey, Esq.
         BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 284-3880
         Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
         E-mail: scott.witlin@btlaw.com
                 caroline.dickey@btlaw.com

FUTURE MOTION: Faces Loh "Personal Injury" Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Motion, Inc.
The case is captioned as Loh v. Future Motion, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-06088-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over personal injury-related claims.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

Future Motion is located in Santa Cruz, California and is part of
the other miscellaneous manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          John Thomas Stralen, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  clay@justice4you.com
                  jstralen@justice4you.com

GAZAROTTI GROUP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gazarotti Group LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gazarotti Group LLC
doing business as: Syndicate Lenders, Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-06747 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20,
2021).

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

Gazarotti Group LLC doing business as Syndicate Lenders --
http://syndicatelenders.com/-- offers merchant cash advances and
term loans for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Tours Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GRAND ATLAS TOURS, SUREFREIGHT GLOBAL LLC DBA PRANA
PETS, and HANSON LAW FIRM, PC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-03556, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-07001-PKC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law by
monopolizing the digital advertising markets, which resulted to
higher advertising prices, higher consumer prices, lower payments
to publishers of online advertisements, and reduced competition in
the purchase and placement of online advertisements.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate,
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Christina C. Sharp, Esq
         Jordan Elias, Esq.
         Adam E. Polk, Esq.
         Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
         GIRARD SHARP LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
         Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
         E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                 jelias@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com
                 scottg@girardsharp.com

                 - and –

         Scott L. Silver, Esq.
         SILVER LAW GROUP
         11780 W. Sample Road
         Coral Springs, FL 33065
         Telephone: (954) 755-4799
         E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com

HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Certification of Recruiter Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKKI RIVERA, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00806 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification
and authorize notice to be sent (by mail, email, and text) to:

   "All salaried healthcare recruiters employed by HealthTrust
   (and its subsidiaries) at any time during the past three
   years (the "Salaried Recruiters")."

To facilitate the Court-approved notice, Rivera respectfully
requests the Court:

   1. approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to Rivera's
      Motion;

   2. approve the phone, email, and text message scripts
      attached to Rivera's Motion;

   3. order HealthTrust to produce to Class Counsel the contact
      information for each Salaried Recruiter within 10 days;

   4. authorize a 60-day notice period for the Salaried
      Recruiters to join this case;

   5. authorize an identical reminder notice halfway through the
      notice period; and

   6. authorize Class Counsel to contact certain Salaried
      Recruiters by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
      forms return as undeliverable to obtain updated contact
      information.

As a healthcare staffing agency, HealthTrust bills itself as an
offering "a lifetime of lasting career opportunities to fit the
needs of every healthcare professional." To provide staffing
services, HealthTrust employs recruiters to make Internet job
postings, place phone calls, and generally field candidates
according to the criteria established by HealthTrust's customers.
HealthTrust pays these recruiters a salary and classifies them as
exempt from overtime pay.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DbVZAm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

HORMEL FOODS: Faces Dakin Suit in Northern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hormel Foods Sales,
LLC. The case is captioned as Dakin, et al. v. Hormel Foods Sales,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-06085-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged property damage.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero.

Hormel is an American company founded in 1891 in Austin, Minnesota,
by George A. Hormel.

The Defendants include Hormel Foods Sales, LLC and Hormel Foods,
LLC.[BN]

Plaintiffs Diane Dakin, Deborah Despain and Marilyn Curren are
represented by:

         Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
         James Robert Noblin, Esq.
         Robert S. Green, Esq.
         GREEN AND NOBLIN, PC
         2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
         Larkspur, CA 94939
         Telephone: (415) 477-6700
         E-mail: ems@classcounsel.com
                 gnecf@classcounsel.com
                 gnecf@classcounsel.com

INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, issued
an order on the plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses, a final
judgement approving the settlement, and an order of dismissal with
prejudice.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain then
current and former executives of the Company.

Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, alleged that the Company (and certain then current
and former executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of
settlement, under which all claims were released, and a payment was
made into an escrow account for the plaintiffs and the class they
purport to represent. On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order
approving the settlement.

On June 25, 2021, the Court issued an order on the plaintiffs'
motion for fees and expenses, a final judgement approving the
settlement, and an order of dismissal with prejudice.

The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses in connection
with this matter for the amount of the final settlement liability
that was not covered by insurance, the amount of which was not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin
delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.
Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Acton, Massachusetts.


INTERSECT ENT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al.,Case No.
4:19-cv-02647, is set for October 22, 2021.

On May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al.,Case No. 4:19-cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.

The Court appointed the lead plaintiff and set a schedule for
initial motions and pleadings.

By order dated June 19, 2020, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. On
July 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
September 18, 2020. By order dated January 22, 2021, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint with leave to amend.

Although the Company continues to believe this lawsuit is without
merit, on March 4, 2021, the Company agreed with the plaintiff to a
settlement-in-principle that, if approved, will resolve the
litigation in its entirety.

The plaintiff filed its motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on May 14, 2021.

On June 22, 2021, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval and set a final settlement approval hearing
for October 22, 2021.

As of June 30, 2021, the Company has accrued anticipated settlement
costs associated with this lawsuit of $0.3 million which is
recorded in other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets.


Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.

JAGUAR LAND: Nejat Suit Removed from Superior Court to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CANDACE NEJAT AND ILU.LILY
DESIGNS, LLC, Individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
36-00021, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Aug. 6, 2021.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-14698-RMB-SAK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the vehicles sold or leased to them by
the Defendant were defective insofar as the diesel particulate
filter is prone to becoming clogged under normal operating
conditions, thereby decreasing performance and violating certain
warranty and consumer fraud statutes.

The Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of the diminution in the
vehicle's value, the price of the vehicle or payments made toward a
vehicle, and the cost of replacement goods such as a substitute
vehicle and the cost of repairs to the vehicle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Depetris, Esq.
          Lee M. Perlman, Esq.
          PERLMAN-DEPETRIS CONSUMER LAW
          1926 Greentree Road, Suite 100
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

               - and -

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEWIS G. ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          Matthew S. Decker, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196

               - and -

          Matthew M. Caminiti, Esq.
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Newark, NJ 07102-5649

JOHN ROBSHAW: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Robshaw Inc. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. John Robshaw Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07083 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 22, 2021).

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

John Robshaw -- https://johnrobshaw.com/ -- offers luxury bedding
and textiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


KATE BROWN: Gardner Files Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kate Brown, et al.
The case is styled as Tyler Gardner, 1,700 John Does, and all
others similarly situated v. Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon;
Colette S. Peters, Director of Oregon Department of Corrections;
Oregon Health Authority (OHA), John Does 1-100, Case No.
2:21-cv-01256-HZ (D. Ore., Aug. 23, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights

Katherine Brown -- https://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/index.aspx --
is an American politician and attorney serving as the 38th governor
of Oregon since 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


KELLOGG SALES: Harris Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kellogg Sales
Company. The case is styled as Anita Harris, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kellogg Sales Company,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01040 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Kellogg Company, doing business as Kellogg's --
https://www.kelloggcompany.com/en_US/home.html -- is an American
multinational food manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


KOCHAVA INC: SDK Collects Personal Data, Rushing Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA RUSHING, ASHLEY SUPERNAULT, JULIE REMOLD, and TED POON on
behalf of themselves, and as parents and guardians of their
children, M.S., L.L., N.B., C.B., R.P., and K.P., and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KOCHAVA, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00322-CWD (D. Idaho, Aug. 9, 2021) is an action brought by
parents to protect the privacy of their children.

Allegedly, the Defendant acted -- and continues to act -- in
concert with developers of online child-directed games (apps) to
take personal data from children while they play these apps on
mobile devices, monitoring their online behavior, and profiling
them for commercial gain.

Specifically, Kochavaprovides its own proprietary computer code
--known as a software development kit ("SDK") -- to developers of
child-directed gaming apps ("Child Apps"), for those developers to
embed within the apps. The Kochava SDK is invisible to the child
user who is playing a Child App, but beneath the surface of game,
the Kochava SDK is secretly collecting and transmitting sensitive,
personal data about the child, the device she is using to play the
Child App, and numerous other personally-identifying data points.

According to the complaint, through the use of "persistent
identifiers" -- unique data points (typically numbers and letters),
akin to a Social Security Number for a device -- Kochava can
monitor the child as she uses other Internet-enabled devices, apps,
and websites. Kochava allegedly uses this information that it has
surreptitiously acquired to make money for itself and its clients.

Kochava Inc. provides online advertising services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Brook B. Bond, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          800 West Main Street, Suite 1300
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 562-4900
          Facsimile: (208) 562-4901
          E-mail: BBond@parsonsbehle.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILLIPS: Rogers Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Robert Rogers, Dephine Michelle
Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS
North America LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-00111-WLS (M.D. Ga., Aug. 20,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          JEFF P SHIVER, ESQ.
          3340 PEACHTREE RD STE 950
          ATLANTA, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Email: jeff@shiverhamilton.com

               - and -

          OSEPH SHANE HUDSON, ESQ.
          PO BOX 2520
          TIFTON, GA 31793
          Phone: (229) 396-5845
          Fax: (229) 396-5845
          Email: jshudson@hudsoninjuryfirm.com

               - and -

          Kyle Gregory Wallace, Esq.
          3490 PIEDMONT RD, STE 640
          ATLANTA, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Fax: (888) 501-9536
          Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Illinois Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Hedick Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE A. HEDICK, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE KRAFT
HEINZ COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-1339 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the two
motions to dismiss filed by Kraft Heinz Company and a set of
individual defendants, who were executives and directors at the
company, and a set of corporate entities that effected the merger.

The consolidated class actions securities case arises out of the
2015 merger that created the Kraft Heinz Co. The securities class
action stems from the 2015 merger of Kraft Foods Group, Inc.
("Kraft") with The H.J. Heinz Co. ("Heinz") into the Kraft Heinz
Co. ("Kraft Heinz" or the "Company").

According to the amended complaint, the merger was orchestrated by
3G Capital Partners ("3G"), a private equity partnership with a
history of implementing a zero-based-budgeting strategy at
companies it owned to extract cost savings. The Plaintiffs say, in
short, that 3G and Kraft (which 3G controlled before the merger)
touted synergies, efficiencies, and eliminating redundancies as the
benefits of Kraft's merger with Heinz, but after the companies
combined, executives at Kraft Heinz realized there were fewer
savings to be had from synergies than they had expected, and
certainly not on the level of the $1.5 billion they had suggested
to investors.

After that, according to the amended complaint, Kraft Heinz pursued
indiscriminate cost-cutting measures that led to inferior products,
deteriorating relationships with distributors, and inability to
meet retailers' demand, but simultaneously assured investors that
the cost savings came from synergies, not short-term budget cuts.
Ultimately, Kraft Heinz's cost-cutting measures came back to bite
it, and the company took a $15.4 billion impairment to its goodwill
and intangibles in February 2019, among other negative impacts, and
its stock price took several hits during the fallout. The
Defendants, for their part, maintain that the company's executives
pursued a business strategy that did not work out, not any course
of fraudulent conduct.

The Plaintiffs in the matter are persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of Kraft Heinz during the period
from Nov. 5, 2015 to Aug. 7, 2019, inclusive.

On Feb. 24, 2019, Plaintiff George Hedick filed a purported class
action complaint in the case. Over the following 18 months, the
Court consolidated a variety of similar cases, appointed as lead
plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AG and Sjunde APFonden,
and received the consolidated amended class action complaint, which
is now the operative complaint.

The amended complaint alleges: violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Kraft Heinz and the
Executive Defendants (Count I); violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against 3G Capital and the Executive Defendants (Count
II); and violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 against 3G Capital (Count III).

Kraft Heinz and the Executive Defendants move to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. They
argue that the Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to
establish materially false statements, scienter, and loss causation
for their Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim. They also argue that
the 20(a) claim fails because the amended complaint does not plead
an underlying securities violation or culpable participation by the
individual defendants. 3G also moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) claim on the ground that the Plaintiffs have failed
to state a primary violation of the securities laws, as well as the
insider trading claim.

The Court has reviewed all 233 pages of the amended complaint, 265
pages of briefing on two motions to dismiss, in addition to various
exhibits filed with the briefs, plus a few pages regarding a notice
of supplemental authority.

Analysis

A. Material Misrepresentations or Omissions

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA")
requires that in any action where "the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant (A) made an untrue statement of a material fact; or (B)
omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances in which they were
made, not misleading," the complaint must "specify each statement
alleged to have been misleading" and "the reason or reasons why the
statement is misleading."

1. Falsity

The Defendants argue that certain statements are not actionable
because they are not false.  They argue that (i) many of the
Plaintiffs' allegations about the integration and savings plan are
conclusory and do not adequately allege falsity; (ii) the
Plaintiffs fail to allege that the transitory and short-term issues
that Defendants point to as the cause of certain poor performances
were false; (iii) Former Employee 9 worked at Kraft Heinz only in
2017 (and for a customer of Kraft Heinz from 2017 through 2019), so
his statements about fill rates cannot support the Plaintiffs'
position; (iv) the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the falsity of
statements that the Company was increasing its investment in
working media (meaning money spent on buying ad space and airtime,
and promotional activity); (v) they deny the falsity of several of
their statements about Canadian retailers; and (vi) Kraft Heinz's
SEC filings during the Class Period certified that Kraft Heinz's
internal controls were effective and provided reasonable assurances
regarding the reliability of the Company's financial reports.

Judge Dow opines that (i) the statements regarding integration and
savings plan are a summary of a set of assertions, not a conclusory
allegation; (ii) the amended complaint adequately pleads the
falsity of statements regarding the Company's financial projections
and performance; (iii) amended complaint's allegations regarding
case fill rates are sufficient even without Former Employee 9's
statements; (iv) the amended complaint contains other allegations
about cuts to media spending that undermine the Defendants'
argument; (v) the amended complaint pleads that the Defendants'
failure to disclose the changes to Canadian retailer contracts,
especially the loss of guaranteed volume of sales to certain
retailers, rendered misleading its statements about the
renegotiated contracts are sufficient for the pleading stage; and
(vi) the amended complaint alleges that the material weaknesses in
Kraft Heinz's financial controls caused specific deficiencies that
led to overstatements in the financial reporting, despite its
public statements to the contrary during the class period and
despite knowing that the SEC was investigating Kraft Heinz's
accounting practices, that is enough to satisfy the falsity
requirement at this stage.

2. Materiality

The Defendants argue that the amended complaint fails to allege
materiality for certain statements. Materiality is a "fact-specific
inquiry" that "depends on the significance the reasonable investor
would place on the withheld or misrepresented information."
Therefore, "the determination of materiality requires delicate
assessments of the inferences a reasonable shareholder would draw
from a given set of facts and the significance of those inferences
to him, and these assessments are peculiarly ones for the trier of
fact; thus a materiality determination is rarely appropriate at the
summary judgment stage, let alone on a motion to dismiss."

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs' "scattershot"
allegations about problems at "isolated components" of Kraft
Heinz's "vast business" do not meet the threshold for materiality.
But Judge Dow opines that the Defendants miss the point. The
amended complaint does not assert that, on its own and out of
context, the failure to disclose each of these problems was a
material misstatement or omission. Rather, the amended complaint
provides specific -- not scattershot -- examples to support its
allegations that the Defendants cut costs in maintenance and
quality assurance across the company and that those choices caused
problems. The Judge declines to take the Defendants' view of these
allegations, because neither the PSLRA, nor Rule 9(b), nor Rule
8(a), nor Rule 12(b)(6) requires the Court to read these
allegations individually and out of context.

3. Non-actionable Opinion Statements

The Defendants argue that certain statements alleged in the amended
complaint constitute non-actionable opinions under Omnicare, Inc.
v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175
(2015).

Judge Dow holds that Omnicare distinguishes statements of fact from
statements of opinion, and clarifies that even opinion statements
may be actionable if they contain untrue embedded statements of
fact, or "omit material facts about the speaker's inquiry into or
knowledge concerning a statement of opinion. The parties operate
under the assumption that Omnicare applies to Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims, and the Judge sees no reason it should not
apply.

The Defendants argue that several of the statements referenced in
the complaint are estimates and projections that are not
actionable. However, the Judge holds that the amended complaint
satisfactorily alleges that such statements are actionable. The
amended complaint also adequately alleges statements regarding
impairment disclosures. Lastly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged that the statements are actionable because
the amended complaint asserts that the company restated its
financials and admitted that its internal controls were materially
deficient.

4. Puffery

The Defendants argue that many of the statements alleged in the
complaint are not actionable because they are mere puffery --
"loosely optimistic statements that are so vague, so lacking in
specificity, or so clearly constituting the opinions of the
speaker, that no reasonable investor could find them important to
the total mix of information available."

Judge Dow disagrees. First, he says, the Defendants undercut their
argument that "courts routinely dismiss claims based on statements
touting companies' capacities for unquantified growth,
efficiencies, or 'synergies,'" by claiming "puffery" on statements
that quantify things like capacity for growth, efficiencies, or
synergies. Second, the amended complaint's alleged statements are
generally factual, specific, and in response to questions from
analysts, none of which are indicative of mere puffery.
Furthermore, context matters, and "the context can add concreteness
to otherwise vague, inactionable statements." Given the context
that the amended complaint puts each of the alleged statements in,
even if they did lean toward hopeful fluff, at this early stage of
the proceedings, it is not appropriate for the Court to rule
definitively that these statements are mere puffery and therefore
not actionable.

B. Scienter

To establish liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
private plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with
scienter, a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate,
or defraud. A plaintiff may demonstrate scienter either (a) by
alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and
opportunity to commit fraud, or (b) by alleging facts that
constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior
or recklessness. The PSLRA further requires the plaintiff to "state
with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
defendant acted with the required state of mind."

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants knowingly or recklessly
made false statements to investors during the Class Period -- that
broadly Kraft Heinz's cost-cutting efforts were sustainable and
based on post-merger "synergies." The Defendants respond that the
more plausible inference is that they believed their cost-savings
strategy would be successful, and when it instead caused the
Company significant losses, the Company hired a new CEO and changed
course.

Judge Dow must compare the plausibility of each of those inferences
based on the amended complaint's factual allegations. He concludes
that the innocent interpretation of the amended complaint that the
Defendants urge is not more plausible or compelling than the
inference that the Executive Defendants acted recklessly or
intentionally. Rather, the inference that they acted with scienter
is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one
could draw from the facts alleged." It follows that the Plaintiffs
have adequately pleaded the Executive Defendants', and therefore
Kraft Heinz's, state of mind. The amended complaint also pleads a
strong inference of scienter as to Kraft Heinz based on the
allegations that non-Defendant executives knew or had access to
information, from reports and attendance at various meetings, that
contradicted the Company's public statements.

C. Forward Looking Statements

The Defendants also argue that some of their statements cannot be
actionable because they are forward-looking statements that fall
under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision. A "forward-looking
statement is one whose truth or falsity cannot be determined until
after the statement has been made."

The Defendants argue that statements concerning expectations about
growth, future economic performance, and future plans fall under
the PSLRA safe harbor for forward-looking statements, but the
argument faces two problems: First, many of the statements that
Defendants identify are assertions of historical and present fact,
not forward-looking statements; and second, the Company did not
provide sufficient cautionary language to accompany its
statements.

Judge Dow opines that some of the statements that the Defendants
claim are forward-looking are in fact firmly planted in the present
or past, meaning that they are not entitled to the protection of
the safe harbor. Furthermore, the Defendants' warnings fall short
of triggering the PSLRA safe harbor provided by meaningful
cautionary language. For these reasons, the Defendants'
forward-looking statements argument is unpersuasive.

D. Loss Causation

In a private securities fraud action, the plaintiff bears "the
burden of proving that the act or omission of the defendant alleged
to violate the securities laws caused the loss for which the
plaintiff seeks to recover damages." This concept, referred to as
"loss causation," "requires a plaintiff to show that a
misrepresentation that affected the integrity of the market price
also caused a subsequent economic loss."

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to plead loss
causation because they do not explain exactly which alleged
misstatements the "corrective disclosures" corrected. But the
Defendants cite no authority for that purported requirement, and
courts around the country have found that plaintiffs may satisfy
the loss causation pleading requirement "without identifying a
corresponding, mirror-image prior representation for every
disclosure that precedes a share price decline." The Defendants'
other challenges to the purported disclosures -- when information
entered the market and dissipated the effect of prior
misstatements, and whether certain statements were corrective
disclosures, explanations for previously-disclosed impairment
charges, or something else -- are matters to be resolved at a later
stage of the case.

E. Section 20(a) Claim Against The Executive Defendants

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Executive Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "controlling persons" of Kraft
Heinz. "Section 20(a) provides a basis for holding individuals
liable for acts of securities fraud if they control other
individuals or businesses that violate the securities laws." To
state a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, a plaintiff
must allege: (1) a primary securities violation; (2) the individual
defendant exercised general control over the issuer's operations;
and (3) the individual defendant "possessed the power or ability to
control the specific transaction or activity upon which the primary
violation was predicated, whether or not that power was
exercised."

Judge Dow holds that they are not, however, required to meet the
even more stringent requirements of the PSLRA. The Seventh Circuit
has long viewed Section 20(a) "as remedial, to be construed
liberally, and requiring only some indirect means of discipline or
influence short of actual direction to hold a "control person"
liable. First, the Judge has already determined that the amended
complaint does plead a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
so he dispenses with that argument. Second, the Defendants admit
that the Seventh Circuit has, so far, declined to adopt "culpable
participation" as a pleading requirement and the Judge declines to
do so now.

F. Section 20(a) Claim Against 3G

Judge Dow now turns to Defendant 3G's arguments that the Section
20(a) claim against it must be dismissed. As described, the Judge
has already determined that the amended complaint does plead a
violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, so he rejects the
argument that the Section 20(a) claim falls based on a failure to
plead an underlying securities violation.

3G further argues that the claim against it must be dismissed for
failure to satisfy the two-prong test for determining control
person liability. It generally denies that it had control of the
company that it created through the 2015 merger of Kraft and Heinz.
The crux of the Plaintiffs' response is that 3G is its partners,
and the whole point of the merger was to put 3G's partners in
control of Kraft Heinz.

Judge Dow holds that the Plaintiffs' position carries the day.
First, though 3G was not a majority shareholder, the agreement with
Berkshire indicates that it had a significant degree of control
over Kraft Heinz. Second, because the only allegation related to
control in that case was that the Defendants owned 47.7% of the
company's stock, and, the amended complaint alleges far more to
establish 3G's control over statements in earnings calls and SEC
filings.

G. Insider Trading Claim Against 3G

The Plaintiffs also make an insider trading claim against 3G;
specifically, the Section 20A claim alleges that 3G violated
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Rule 10(b)5-1 when 3G sold
approximately $1.2 billion in KHC stock on Aug. 7, 2018, while in
possession of material, non-public information ("MNPI").  A person
is liable for insider trading when he obtains (a) material, (b)
nonpublic information intended to be used solely for a proper
purpose, and then (c) misappropriates or otherwise misuses that
information (d) with scienter, (e) in breach of a fiduciary duty,
or other duty arising out of a relationship of trust and
confidence, to make "secret profits."

The Defendants argue that the amended complaint fails for three
reasons: (1) it does not plead that 3G possessed MNPI; (2) it does
not plead that 3G traded with scienter; and (3) it does not plead
that 3G breached a fiduciary duty.

First, Judge Dow holds that a materiality determination is rarely
appropriate at the motion to dismiss stage, so he declines to find
at this stage of the case that the SEC investigation was not
material as a matter of law. Second, accepting the allegations in
the amended complaint as true and taking them collectively, he
says, the inference of scienter is at least as strong as any
opposing inference. Third, the Judge holds that 3G was an insider
because its partners served as Kraft Heinz's most senior executives
and on its board of directors, chose and executed Kraft Heinz's
business strategy, and oversaw its day-to-day operation.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Dow denies both motions to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yua8b2kd from
Leagle.com.


LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Manopla Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in the purported securities class suit entitled,
Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel Coats,
Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D., is pending.

On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The Company's motion to dismiss was granted and the action was
dismissed with prejudice by the District Court on August 14, 2020.


The lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 11, 2020 and a brief in
support of its appeal on December 17, 2020. The Company filed a
response brief on February 18, 2021 and the lead plaintiffs filed a
reply brief on March 11, 2021.

Oral arguments were held on June 9, 2021.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from March
11, 2016 through July 29, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from the Company's
Phase 3 clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes
patients and the prospects of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1
diabetes. The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


LIFE LINE: Seeks Second Extension on Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANETTE LAIRD and JESSICA
ELLIOTT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
LIFE LINE SCREENING OF AMERICA, LTD., Case No. 5:21-cv-01244-SL
(N.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting a second extension of three weeks (until September 13,
2021) to respond to "Plaintiffs' Pre-D scovery Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216
(b)."

Life Line provides health screening services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38fJGEI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

The Attorneys for the Defendant Life Line Screening of America,
Ltd., are:

          Michele L. Jakubs, Esq.
          Scott H. DeHart, Esq.
          Drew C. Piersall, Esq.
          ZASHIN & RICH CO., L.P.A.
          17 South High Street, Suite 900
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-4411
          Facsimile: (614) 224-4433
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-4441
          Facsimile: (216) 696-1618
          E-mail: shd@zrlaw.com
                  dcp@zrlaw.com
                  mlj@zrlaw.com
                  950 Main Avenue, 4th Floor


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Consolidated Suits on COI Rates Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend the consolidated litigation styled, In re:
Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LUMOS PHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumos Pharma Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that final settlement
approval hearing before the Court for the Southern District of NY
is currently set for September 22, 2021.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v.
NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545.

Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed
Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their
selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Securities Action.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
Company, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer Charles J.
Link, Jr., and the Company's former Chief Medical Officer and
President Nicholas Vahanian,.

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 14, 2017.

On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY
dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim,
without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018
to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in
their claims.

On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the
second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the
Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company's investors.

The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013
through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the
Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On
March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July
2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on October 21, 2019. In an opinion dated July 13, 2020,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the second amended complaint in part, vacated the
district court's dismissal of the second amended complaint in part,
and remanded the matter to the district court for further
proceedings.

On August 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing en
banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the opinion from the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the Petition on September 8, 2020 and issued a
mandate to the Court for the Southern District of NY on September
15, 2020.

On December 16, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle
to fully resolve the Securities Action, and on February 1, 2021, a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed in the
Court for the Southern District of NY.

On February 25, 2021 the Court for the Southern District of NY
denied the motion for preliminary approval and directed the parties
to re-submit the motion with certain revisions.

On March 24, 2021 the parties re-submitted the motion for
preliminary approval, which the Court for the Southern District of
NY granted on April 2, 2021.

The parties' agreement, which remains subject to final court
approval and certain other conditions, provides in part for a $13.5
million settlement payment in exchange for the dismissal and a
release of all claims against the Defendants in connection with the
Securities Action.

The full amount of the settlement payment is expected to be paid by
the Company's insurance provider under its insurance policy.

The final settlement approval hearing before the Court for the
Southern District of NY is currently set for September 22, 2021.

Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company
operates as a stage biopharmaceutical development company
developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos
Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical
needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based
in Austin, Texas.


MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Daniels Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey and Company,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lisa Renee Daniels, individually
and as the next friend of minor, A. K. D., and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.; McKinsey
and Company, Inc. United States; McKinsey and Company, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.; Case No. 2:21-cv-00466 (S.D.W. Va., Aug. 20,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          Melissa Rose Ellsworth, Esq.
          Sarah J. Surber, Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311-2204
          Phone: (304) 343-4401
          Fax: (304) 343-4405
          Email: drbarneywv@gmail.com
                 kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                 mellsworth@thompsonbarneylaw.com
                 ssurber@thompsonbarneylaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. New, Esq.
          P. O. Box 5516
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 250-6017
          Fax: (304) 250-6012
          Email: steve@newlawoffice.com


MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Lambert Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey and Company,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Timothy Lambert, individually
and as the next friend of minors, T. J. L. and M. L., on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.;
McKinsey and Company, Inc. United States; McKinsey and Company,
Inc., Washington, D.C.; Case No. 5:21-cv-00467 (S.D.W. Va., Aug.
20, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American
worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University
of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic
management to corporations, governments, and other
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          Melissa Rose Ellsworth, Esq.
          Sarah J. Surber, Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311-2204
          Phone: (304) 343-4401
          Fax: (304) 343-4405
          Email: drbarneywv@gmail.com
                 kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                 mellsworth@thompsonbarneylaw.com
                 ssurber@thompsonbarneylaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. New, Esq.
          P. O. Box 5516
          Beckley, WV 25801
          Phone: (304) 250-6017
          Fax: (304) 250-6012
          Email: steve@newlawoffice.com


MCKINSEY AND COMPANY: Woolwine Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CYNTHIA WOOLWINE, individually and as the next
friend of minor E.G.W. and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MCKINSEY AND COMPANY, INC. MCKINSEY AND COMPANY, INC.
UNITED STATES, and MCKINSEY AND COMPANY, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00418, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on August
19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06430-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged civil conspiracy,
nuisance, negligence and gross negligence, and medical monitoring
by fueling the opioid epidemic in West Virginia.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. is a management
consulting firm, with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
        
         Stephen P. New, Esq.
         NEW, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES
         430 Harper Park Dr.
         Beckley, WV 25801
         Telephone: (304) 250-6017
         Facsimile: (304) 250-6012
         E-mail: 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, West Virginia 25311
         Telephone: (304) 343-4401
         Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
         E-mail: 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
         E-mail: cbrustowicz@clfnola.com
                 bcooper@clfnola.com
                 swussow@clfnola.com
                 vcobb@clfnola.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
         E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com

METLIFE INC:Dismissal of Parchmann Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal in Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (E.D.N.Y.,
filed February 5, 2018), is pending.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that
MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board, and its former Chief Financial Officer violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


On January 11, 2021, the court granted MetLife's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Zirpoli Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midland Funding, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled BENJAMIN ZIRPOLI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1-19-cv-01428, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendants for
their violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity
Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, in March 2018, Defendants filed suit
against Plaintiff in a Franklin County Magisterial District Court
(the Lawsuit). The Defendants claimed Midland Funding purchased a
loan Plaintiff was alleged to have opened with OneMain Financial
(the Loan).

After being served with the Lawsuit, Plaintiff paid to retain an
attorney to defend the Lawsuit and entered a defense. Before the
hearing, Defendants dismissed the Lawsuit. Since dismissal,
Defendants continue to report the Loan to various consumer
reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in an ongoing
attempt to collect the Loan from Plaintiff.

The Defendants most recently reported the Loan to various consumer
reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in May of
2019.

Additionally, around April of 2019, Defendants obtained and used
Plaintiff's credit report from various consumer reporting agencies,
including TransUnion.

According to the complaint, the Lawsuit and Defendants' credit
reporting of the Loan constitute as unlawful attempts to collect on
the Loan, and Defendants' procurement and use of Plaintiff's credit
report was impermissible, because Defendants' were not lawfully
permitted to purchase the Loan and cannot lawfully attempt to
collect on the Loan.

Midland Funding's sole business is the purchasing of defaulted
consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt for
profit. Midland Credit's sole business is collecting debts that are
purchased and owned by Midland Funding, including calling consumers
and sending them letters.

Midland Funding now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated July
7, 2021, denying its motion to compel individual arbitration and
stay proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Benjamin Zirpoli v. Midland
Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 21-2438, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on August 4, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant MIDLAND FUNDING LLC is represented by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER
          12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com

Plaintiff-Appellee BENJAMIN ZIRPOLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

               - and -

          John B. Keller, Esq.
          KELLER KELLER BECK & ROSS
          1035 Wayne Avenue
          Chambersburg, PA 17201
          Telephone: (717) 264-1110
          E-mail: jebkeller@kkbrlaw.com   

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. is represented
by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER
          12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com

MODIVCARE INC: Caregivers' Suit Against All Metro Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that All Metro Home Care
Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro Health Care continues to
defend a class action suit related to its failure to pay live-in
caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day.

In 2017, one of the company's Personal Care segment subsidiaries,
All Metro Home Care Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro
Health Care, received a class action lawsuit in state court
claiming that, among other things, it failed to properly pay
live-in caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day
("live-ins").

The Company currently pays live-ins for 13 hours per day as
supported through a written opinion letter from the New York State
Department of Labor ("NYSDOL").

A similar case involving this issue has been heard by the New York
Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), which on March 26,
2019, issued a ruling reversing earlier lower courts' decisions
that an employer must pay live-ins for 24 hours.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the NYSDOL's interpretation to pay
live-ins 13 hours instead of 24 hours if certain conditions were
being met.

If the class action lawsuit on this matter is allowed to proceed,
and is successful, All Metro may be liable for back wages and
litigated damages going back to November 2011.

All Metro intends to defend itself vigorously with respect to this
matter, believes that it is and has been in compliance in all
material respects with the laws and regulations covering pay for
live-in caregivers, and does not believe in any event that the
ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, liquidity, financial condition or
results of operations.

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, ModivCare, Inc. through its
fully-owned subsidiary LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, is the nation's
largest manager of non-emergency medical transportation programs
for state governments and managed care organizations. In September
2020, ModivCare acquired Simplura Health Group, a leading provider
of non-medical home care services to Medicaid patient populations,
including seniors and disabled adults, in need of care monitoring
and assistance performing activities of daily living. ModivCare
generated pro forma revenues of approximately $2.1 billion for the
twelve months ended June 30, 2021.


MODIVCARE INC: Farah Suit Gets Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
ModivCare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court conditionally
certified as the putative class all current and former In Network
Transportation Providers who, individually or through their
companies, were issued 1099 payments from ModivCare Solutions for
providing non-emergency medical transportation services for
ModivCare Solutions for the previous three years.

On August 6, 2020, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, the Company's
subsidiary now known as ModivCare Solutions, LLC, was served with a
putative class action law suit filed against it by Mohamed Farah,
the owner of transportation provider Dalmar Transportation, in the
Western District of Missouri, seeking to represent all non-employee
transportation providers contracted with ModivCare Solutions.

The lawsuit alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, as amended (the "FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage Act,
and asserts that all transportation providers to ModivCare
Solutions in the putative class should be considered ModivCare
Solutions' employees rather than independent contractors.

On June 6, 2021, the Court conditionally certified as the putative
class all current and former In Network Transportation Providers
who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099
payments from ModivCare Solutions for providing non-emergency
medical transportation services for ModivCare Solutions for the
previous three years.

ModivCare Solutions has provided Mr. Farah's counsel with a list of
transportation providers meeting the definition for the putative
class and anticipates notices about the putative class action being
sent out to the potential class members in the coming weeks.

ModivCare said, "ModivCare Solutions believes it will be able to
decertify this class action after discovery and in any event
intends to defend itself vigorously with respect to this matter,
believes that it is and has been in compliance in all material
respects with the laws and regulations regarding the
characterization of the transportation providers as independent
contractors, and does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, liquidity, financial condition or results of
operations."

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, ModivCare, Inc. ("ModivCare")
through its fully-owned subsidiary LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, is
the nation's largest manager of non-emergency medical
transportation programs for state governments and managed care
organizations. In September 2020, ModivCare acquired Simplura
Health Group, a leading provider of non-medical home care services
to Medicaid patient populations, including seniors and disabled
adults, in need of care monitoring and assistance performing
activities of daily living. ModivCare generated pro forma revenues
of approximately $2.1 billion for the twelve months ended June 30,
2021.


MODIVCARE INC: Subsidiary Faces Federal Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
ModivCare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's subsidiary
All Metro Home Care Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro
Health Care is facing a federal class action suit.

In a companion case to the All Metro Home Care Services of New
York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro Health Care (All Metro), a federal class
action lawsuit was filed in May 2021 alleging similar claims as in
the All Metro case.

All Metro has retained the same attorneys to represent it in both
the state and federal cases.

All Metro intends to defend itself vigorously with respect to this
matter, believes that it is and has been in compliance in all
material respects with the laws and regulations covering pay for
live-in caregivers, and does not believe in any event that the
ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect
on the Company’s business, liquidity, financial condition or
results of operations.

Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, ModivCare, Inc. through its
fully-owned subsidiary LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, is the nation's
largest manager of non-emergency medical transportation programs
for state governments and managed care organizations. In September
2020, ModivCare acquired Simplura Health Group, a leading provider
of non-medical home care services to Medicaid patient populations,
including seniors and disabled adults, in need of care monitoring
and assistance performing activities of daily living. ModivCare
generated pro forma revenues of approximately $2.1 billion for the
twelve months ended June 30, 2021.


MOOREGROUP CORP: Court Certifies Class of Employees in Porter Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MOOREGROUP
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-7405 (KAM) (VMS)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs seeks for an order certifying their New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

On Dec. 20, 2017, Plaintiffs Joshua Porter and Sharkey Simmons
commenced the action against Defendants MooreGroup; Martin Moore
("M. Moore"); John Moore ("J. Moore"); and Gary Moore ("G. Moore"),
alleging various wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., NYLL,
Sections 650, et seq., and NYLL Sections 190, et seq.

The Plaintiffs brought their FLSA claims as a collective action on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of
the Defendants and their NYLL claims as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all
fire guards, welders, and other construction employees working for
the Defendants in New York.

By order dated May 15, 2018, with the Defendants' consent, the
Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Collective Action
pursuant to the FLSA. The Collective Action Order limited the class
of potential Plaintiffs to fire guards, welders, laborers, and
other construction employees who worked for the Defendants between
Dec. 20, 2014 and May 14, 2018.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend
the complaint to add: Plaintiff Emanuel Colajay Rivera as a named
Plaintiff; Baldwin Harbor Contracting Inc. as a Defendant; and
retaliation claims, pursuant to the relevant FLSA and NYLL
statutory provisions, on behalf of Simmons and Rivera.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Jan. 13, 2020. Their
counsel sought leave from the court to file a late consent to
become a party plaintiff, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA,
on behalf of Oscar Vigil. Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon granted
the Plaintiffs' request to file a late opt in consent for Vigil on
July 1, 2020.

Following extensive discovery and a pre-motion conference, the
Court set a briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs to serve their
motion for class certification, which is presently before the
Court.

The Plaintiffs move for an Order certifying their NYLL claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of the
following class: "All fire guards, welders, carpenters, laborers
and other construction employees who worked for the Mooregroup
defendants at any time since Dec. 20, 2011."  The case was
previously conditionally certified as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants object to class certification, arguing that the
Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality, adequacy of
representation, typicality, and numerosity requirements under Rule
23(a), that common issues of law or fact do not predominate, and a
class action is not superior to individual litigation in the case.

Judge Matsumoto concludes that the Plaintiffs have met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
Therefore, she grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the appointment of Pelton Graham LLC as the class
counsel. The named Plaintiffs are appointed as the class
representatives.

As a threshold matter, however, the Judge agrees with the
Defendants that the potential class including "construction
employees" is potentially overbroad and exercises the court's
discretion to modify the class. As conceded in the Plaintiff's
briefing, the relevant NYLL class is limited to "Mooregroup
employees who performed manual construction labor, including but
not limited to carpenters, laborers, fire guards, and welders."

Thus, the relevant NYLL class to be certified includes: "All fire
guards, welders, carpenters, laborers and other construction
employees who performed manual construction labor who worked or the
Mooregroup Defendants at any time since Dec. 20, 2011."

The Defendants will provide the Plaintiffs with the names and last
known addresses of the potential Plaintiffs within 30 days of the
date of the Memorandum and Order. The Plaintiffs are directed to
work with the Defendants to draft for the court's review a mutually
acceptable notice to be sent to the potential Plaintiffs to inform
them of the lawsuit and their right to opt-out of the suit. The
Plaintiffs will submit the proposed notice to the Defendants for
their approval within 30 days of the date of the Memorandum and
Order. Any objections by the Defendants to the form of the notice
and consent that cannot be resolved with the Plaintiffs will be
made to the court within 15 days of receipt of the Plaintiffs'
proposed notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4fnvzz6 from Leagle.com.


MRS BPO: Faces Williams FDCPA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The
case is captioned as Vincent Williams v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No.
7:21-cv-06656-CS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel.

MRS BPO is a full-service accounts receivable management firm based
in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Facchine Suit Moved From W.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LORRAINE FACCHINE, individually and on behalf of
the ESTATE OF LARRY FACCHINE, Deceased; JOSEPH A. KOLODZIEJ,
Individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF ANTHONY M. KOLODZIEJ,
Deceased; along with other similarly situated individuals v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00814,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04421 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
fraudulent concealment by its failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiffs and other college football
players from the long-term dangers associated with traumatic brain
injuries (TBIs).

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Jason E. Luckasevic, Esq.
         GOLDBERG, PERSKY & WHITE
         11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1800
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 471-3980
         E-mail: jluckasevic@gpwlaw.com

NCAA: Weed Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Weed, III, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-02037, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 20,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04247 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NESTLE USA: Howze Sues Over Coffee Mate's Mislabeled Servings
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HOWZE, BRENDA WALTON, CATHERINE ROTHWELL, and JENNY CAREY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-06994
(S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for Breach of Express Warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violation of the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its Nestle Coffee Mate products. The Defendant is systemically
underfilling the products to provide significantly fewer servings
than represented. The Plaintiffs and Class members were injured as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach because
they overpaid for the products on account of their
misrepresentations regarding the amounts of servings contained,
says the suit.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a food manufacturer with a principal place of
business in Arlington, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Yitzchak Kopel, 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: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com

NETFLIX INC: Ashdown City Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF ASHDOWN, ARKANSAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NETFLIX, INC., and HULU, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-04113-SOH (W.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiff files motion for class certification and
appointment of class representative and class counsel.

The issues in this case arise from the uniform application of
Arkansas Video Services Providers Act ("VSPA), which applies
equally to all proposed Class members. The central question, which
is dispositive for all proposed Class members, is whether
Defendants Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC are "video service
providers" under the Act. The answer is the same for all proposed
Class members: Defendants are indeed video service providers
because they provide video programming comparable to programming
provided by television broadcast stations over wires or cables
located, at least in part, in public rights-of-way.

Every member of the proposed Class (including Plaintiff) is a
municipality located in the State of Arkansas in which Defendants
provide video service. As such, pursuant to the Act, Defendants owe
each of the proposed Class members video service provider fees,
which are uniformly calculated by multiplying gross revenue derived
from subscribers with service addresses located within the
geographic area of the proposed Class members by the 5% specified
in the Act.

The Defendants' subscribers must use a broadband Internet
connection, such as DSL or fiber optic cable to receive their
programming on an Internet-connected device, such as a computer or
smart television. The Defendants use the infrastructure of Internet
service providers to transmit their video programming from their
servers to their subscribers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WnTOZH
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Chad Ihrig, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: 512-328-5333
          Facsimile: 512-328-5335
          E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
                  cihrig@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Chad Trammell, Esq.
          TRAMMELL-PIAZZA LAW FIRM
          418 North State Line Avenue
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: 810-779-1860
          Facsimile: 870-779-1861
          E-mail: Chad@Trammellpiazza.com

               - and -

          Anthony K. Bruster, Esq.
          BRUSTER PLLC
          2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 500
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 223-3999
          Facsimile: (903) 223-8520

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
          Brittany Hartwig, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-314-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                  bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Peter Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: 713-338-2560
          E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com

NEW YORK CITY: Malcolm Seeks Certification of Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MALCOLM, KARVEN
ALCINDOR, ANTHONY APONTE, SHIRLENE BLAIR, DERYCK CHARLES, LATIF
CORNELIUS, LANAE CURRY, JOSE DEJESUS, SHAKIYNA ESPINO, ROBERTO
FERNANDEZ, VLAJEMY FRANCOIS, CRYSTAL GARNETT, CHANTEL GOUVEIA,
APRIL HERNEY-KOSAKOWSKI, TAMELLE HILLIARD, YOLANDA HOLMES, MONIQUE
JOHNSON, KEYSHA LEWIS, CAROLYN MARAJ, HUZIRAN MOZEB, ZHIHUI PU,
DAVID RUDDOCK, MYRLINE ULYSSES, and BRICE WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09641-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a representative
      collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA), on behalf of:

      "all Assistant Deputy Wardens, Captains, and Correction
      Officers employed by the City of New York
      ("NYC")/Department of Corrections ("DOC") at Rikers Island
      at any time within the three year period immediately
      preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this
      action and up to the time certification is granted
      ("relevant time period");

   2. requiring that NYC/DOC produce a computer readable data
      file containing the following for each potentially
      similarly situated employee during the relevant time
      period: name, last known mailing addresses, telephone
      number, private/work email address(es), work location(s),
      dates of employment, job title(s) held and date(s) on
      which each title was held during the relevant time period
      within 10 business days of this Court's order;

   3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. directing thePlaintiffs' counsel to send via first class
      mail and private email address said notice and consent
      form to each collective member within 10 business days of
      receipt of the data in (2) from NYC/DOC's counsel;

   5. directing NYC/DOC to send via work email address the
      notice and consent form to the collective members within
      10 business days after NYC/DOC's provision of the data in
      (2);

   6. directing NYC/DOC to file an affidavit of compliance with
      the email requirement in within 10 days of its compliance
      with same;

   7. setting a period of 60 days following the tenth day after
      NYC/DOC provides the data for the collective members to
      mail or email completed consent forms to Plaintiffs'
      Counsel;

   8. granting such other, further, or different relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3guUDqR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 East Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          E-mail: paul.pagano@moserlawfirm.com

NITORI USA: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nitori USA, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nitori USA, Inc., doing
business as: Aki-Home a California corporation; Does 1 to 10
inclusive; Case No. 5:21-cv-01425-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20,
2021).

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

Nitori Aki-Home home furniture and decore store --
https://aki-home.com/ -- offers inspiring designs, from affordable
modern home furniture to bedding, accessories and other home
decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Burger Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Zechariah Burger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Northrop Grumman Systems
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case
No. 21STCV25762 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-06761 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Northrop Grumman Corporation  -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/--
is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



NORWICH COMMERCIAL: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norwich Commercial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Leonel Costa, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Norwich Commercial Group,
Inc. doing business as: Norcom Mortgage, Case No. 3:21-cv-01126-SRU
(D. Conn., Aug. 23, 2021).

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

Norcom -- https://norcommortgage.com/ -- is a residential mortgage
lender specializing in flexible financing solutions for first-time
homebuyers, experienced shoppers, Veterans, & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


NURTURE INC: Faces Altuve Fraud Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is captioned as Altuve, et al. v. Nurture, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06678-VM (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2021).

The lawsuit arises from fraud-related claims.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero.

Nurture, Inc. is located in New York, New York, and is part of the
grocery and related product merchant wholesalers industry.[BN]

Plaintiffs Edelin Altuve, Brandy Daniels, Diego Galeana, April
Gillens, Jandrea Glenn, Elizabeth Hall, Savanna Jarrell, Laszlo
Kovacs, Cori Lau, Michelle Lyles, Christina Martinson, Melissa
Mejia, Chey'na Micciche, Julia Milton, Michael Morrow, Stacy Musto,
Gladys Okolo and Lidia Tilahun, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM CO. LPA
          372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
          Westwood, NJ 07675
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com

NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Lytle Seeks Certification of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN LYTLE and CHRISTINE
MUSTHALER, v. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC. and
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES VETERINARY SCIENCES, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00835-FMO-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting certification of Plaintiffs' class claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Judge Fernando
M. Olguin's Order.

Nutramax provides pharmaceutical products. The Company
manufactures, fabricates, and process drugs in pharmaceutical
preparations.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3guTBet
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818)788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          Brenton Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, PA
          316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bgoodman@levinlaw.com

OCUGEN INC: Faces Covaxin Related Putative Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Ocugen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing putative class
action suits in Pennsylvania concerning its announcement of its
decision to pursue the submission of a Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for Covaxin rather than pursuing an Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for the vaccine candidate.

On June 17, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of the company officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:21-cv-02725) that purported to state a
claim for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
statements made by the company concerning the announcement of its
decision to pursue the submission of a BLA for COVAXIN rather than
pursuing an EUA for the vaccine candidate.

On July 16, 2021, a second securities class action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:21-cv-03182) that also purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based
on same statements as the first complaint.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

The company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against them.

Ocugen said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to their
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us. We
may also become subject to additional securities class action
lawsuits in the future. This risk is especially relevant for us
because life sciences companies have experienced significant stock
price volatility in recent years."

Ocugen, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing a pipeline of
innovative therapies that address rare and underserved eye
diseases. The Company is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit filed in in Missouri state court, has been concluded.

In September 2017, a putative class action case was filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court.

The Company successfully removed the case to federal court, and in
August 2020, the court granted the defendants' joint summary
judgement motion, and dismissed the case.

The parties have fully resolved the plaintiffs appeal of that
decision, and the case has been dismissed by the plaintiffs, thus
concluding the matter.

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.


OREGON MUTUAL: Court Tosses Dakota Ventures' 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAKOTA VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a KOKOPELLI GRILL and COYOTE
BBQ PUB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00630-HZ (D. Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Dakota Ventures filed the class action for breach of
contract and declaratory relief against Defendant Oregon Mutual
alleging that Defendant breached its insurance contract with
Plaintiff when it denied coverage for losses stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff operates two restaurants in Port Angeles, Washington.
It opened Kokopelli Grill in 2009 and opened Coyote BBQ Pub in
2015. The Plaintiff purchased a "Business Owner's Protector Policy"
for both businesses from the Defendant. The Policy covers "direct
physical loss or damage to Covered Property" and "direct physical
loss of or damage to property" caused by "risks of direct physical
loss."

In late February 2020, Washington Governor Inslee declared a State
of Emergency statewide. In March 2020, Governor Inslee issued an
executive order that prohibited people from gathering in any public
venue for the purpose of consuming food and beverages. As a result,
the Plaintiff suspended indoor dining services and reduced its
operations at both restaurants. The Plaintiff submitted an
insurance claim to the Defendant to recover its financial losses
caused by the Governor's orders and the resulting reduced business
operations. The same day, the Defendant denied coverage because it
found that no covered cause of loss had occurred that triggered
coverage under the Policy's provisions. The lawsuit followed.

The Plaintiff alleges that the presence of COVID-19 on property
damages property. It makes it unsafe. It makes it cause sickness.
The Plaintiff's claims are premised on its allegation that it
"directly lost the functionality of its property for business
purposes due to COVID-19." It alleges that the Policy's Business
Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, Ingress or Egress, and Sue
and Labor provisions cover its financial losses and that the
Defendant breached the insurance contract when it denied coverage
under those provisions. The Plaintiff further alleges that it is
entitled to a declaratory judgment establishing that its business
interruption losses are insured losses under the terms of its
policy.

Discussion

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint and argues
that no provisions of the policy cover the Plaintiff's losses. It
moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC because no "direct physical
loss of or damage to" property occurred that obligated the
Defendant to provide coverage under the Business Income and Civil
Authority coverages. The Defendant also argues that no "direct
physical loss or damage to" property occurred that would provide
coverage under the Extra Expense, Ingress or Egress, and the Sue
and Labor provisions of the policy.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion. It argues that the Policy's
undefined terms "loss of," "damage to" and "direct physical loss"
cover the loss of the functionality and impairment of use of its
covered properties for dine-in services due to the Washington
Governor's closure orders issued in response to the pandemic. Amici
curiae United Policyholders, Business Interruption Group, and
National Independent Venue Association join the Plaintiff in
opposition.

I. Coverage Provisions

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's pandemic-related business
losses are not covered under the terms of the Policy because no
risk of direct physical loss to the Plaintiff's business occurred.

Judge Hernandez concludes that for a Covered Cause of Loss to have
occurred, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that COVID-19 or Governor
Inslee's executive orders caused harm to or destroyed its business
property or dispossessed the Plaintiff of its business property.

First, the Judge finds that the Civil Authority provision extends
coverage for loss of Business Income and necessary Extra Expense
"caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the
described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to
property, other than at the described premises, caused by or
resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." Thus, the Civil
Authority provision requires that an action of civil authority
prohibited access to the Plaintiff's restaurants due to the loss,
destruction, dispossession of or injury to property other than
Plaintiff's property for coverage to apply.

Second, the Judge holds that the Extra Expense coverage covers
"direct physical loss or damage to property," Policy 11, and the
Ingress or Egress Endorsement, Policy 66, provides coverage when
"direct loss or damage to property" other than the Plaintiff's
property prevents ingress or egress to Plaintiff's property.
Despite the slightly different phrasing, the parties do not argue
that the phrase "direct physical loss or damage to property" and
"direct loss or damage to property" have a different meaning from
the phrase "direct physical loss of or damage to property." The
Judge thus assumes, without finding, that the three phrases have
the same plain meaning for purposes of his Opinion.

Having determined the plain meaning of the undefined terms of the
Policy, Judge Hernandez now applies the plain meaning of those
terms to the language of the Policy to determine whether coverage
exists.

A. Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage

The Defendant argues that the phrase "direct physical loss of or
damage to property" and "direct physical loss or damage" in the
Business Income and Extra Expense provisions require the Plaintiff
to lose of possession of its property or demonstrate a physical
alteration in the condition of its property for coverage to apply.

Judge Hernandez agrees. Construing the allegations in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff, he finds that the losses alleged
by the Plaintiff are purely economic and not the result of any
"direct physical loss of or damage to property." He says the
Plaintiff's pleadings attempt to characterize the harmful effects
of government closure orders issued in response to the public
health crisis as "physical loss" or "physical damage," but no
physical loss of or physical damage to its property occurred. As a
result, no coverage exists under the Business Income and Extra
Expense provisions of the Policy.

B. Civil Authority Coverage and Ingress and Egress Endorsement

For coverage to exist under the Civil Authority provision, the
Plaintiff must plausibly allege that "direct physical loss of or
damage to property, other than at the described premises,"
occurred. The Plaintiff's FAC alleges that "COVID-19 caused damage
to property near the Plaintiff's Covered Property in the same
manner described above that it did so with the Plaintiff's Covered
Property." Because the Plaintiff alleged only that other properties
were damaged "in the same manner" as its property -- which the
Court has found not to be a Covered Cause of Loss -- the
Plaintiff's allegations for coverage under the Civil Authority
provision also fails to allege any "direct physical loss of or
damage to" any other property.

Judge Hernandez holds that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly
allege a prohibition of access -- whether by action of civil
authority or by means of a physical barrier caused by nearby
physical damage -- sufficient to trigger coverage under the Civil
Authority provision or the Ingress or Egress Endorsement.

C. Sue and Labor Clause

The Defendant also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim that the
Sue and Labor clause covers its restaurants' losses. The Sue and
Labor clause places a duty on insureds to mitigate the damage
resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss by taking "all reasonable
steps to protect the property from further damage." The Defendant
argues that since the Plaintiff has failed to allege that a Covered
Cause of Loss occurred, the Plaintiff cannot recover expenses
relating to its mitigation of any damage under the Sue and Labor
clause.

Since Judge Hernandez has already determined that the Plaintiff has
failed to allege a Covered Cause of Loss -- a risk of direct
physical loss -- the Plaintiff cannot recover under the Sue and
Labor provision.

II. Context within the Policy as a Whole

When the terms of an insurance policy have plain meaning, then
Judge Hernandez applies the plain meaning without need to resort to
other methods of contract interpretation. However, the Judge says
it is worth emphasizing that the context in which the phrases
"direct physical loss," "direct physical loss of or damage to
property," and "direct physical loss or damage to property" appear
in the Policy confirms the accuracy of the Court's conclusion that
the Policy requires a direct physical alteration of the condition
of the property or dispossession of the property for coverage to
apply.

The Judge holds that the option of the insurer to decide whether to
repair, replace, or take and pay the insured the value of damaged
property also suggests that in order to invoke coverage (1) the
loss or damage of the property must be tangible; and (2) the
property must have had an initial satisfactory state that changed
to an unsatisfactory state when an external force acted on the
property. The "Loss Payment" provision is entirely inconsistent
with the Policy covering an inability to use undamaged restaurant
buildings and dining rooms. An inability to use property in the
manner the insured intended is not something that can be repaired,
rebuilt, or replaced

III. Leave to Amend

Because he finds that the Plaintiff's FAC cannot be amended to
plausibly allege a claim under the terms of the Policy, Judge
Hernandez denies leave to amend.

Conclusion

Judge Hernandez concludes that many businesses suffered extreme
hardship and financial loss as a result of the government shutdown
orders that state and local governments nationwide issued to curb
the spread of COVID-19 infections throughout the country. People
across the world have lost their lives and livelihood as a result
of the pandemic. Judge Hernandez sympathizes with the plight of
businessowners who suffered significant and even catastrophic
financial losses as a result of the government closure orders. The
Plaintiff's business insurance policy, however, does not cover its
loss of business income.

The Judge grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/54689882 from Leagle.com.

Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dicellolevitt.com -- DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, in Chicago, Illinois.

Kenneth P. Abbarno -- kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com -- DiCello Levitt
Gutzler LLC, in Mentor, Ohio.

Jennifer S. Wagner -- jwagner@stollberne.com -- Steve D. Larson ,
Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, in Portland, Oregon.

Clarke Benbow Holland -- cholland@plawp.com -- Pacific Law
Partners, LLP, in Emeryville, California.

R. Lind Stapley -- stapley@sohalang.com -- Jennifer Dinning,
Jillian Hinman, Soha & Lang, PS, in Seattle, Washington.

Jay W. Beattie -- jbeattie@lindsayhart.com -- Lindsay Hart LLP, in
Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Katelyn J. Fulton -- Katelyn.Fulton@MillerNash.com -- Seth H. Row,
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, in Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for
the Defendant.


PARETEUM CORP: Bids to Dismiss 1st Amended Securities Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PARETEUM SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19 Civ.
9767 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's First Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint against Pareteum;
Robert H. Turner; Edward O'Donnell; Victor Bozzo; Denis McCarthy;
Dawson James Securities Inc. ("DJSI"); and Squar Milners. The
Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a class of purchasers
and/or acquirers of Pareteum securities between Dec. 14, 2017, and
Oct. 21, 2019.

With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Plaintiff alleges that
Pareteum and the Individual Defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning Pareteum's (1) reported
revenue and realized revenue growth rates; (2) revenue recognition,
GAAP compliance, internal controls, and financial reporting; (3)
backlog value and conversion rates; (4) access to a credit
facility; and (5) company growth. The Complaint also asserts
control person claims against Turner, O'Donnell, and Bozzo under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

With respect to the Securities Act claims, the Complaint alleges
that Pareteum, certain Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
and Auditor Defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and/or 15 of the
Securities Act in connection with Pareteum's acquisition of iPass
Inc. and a $40 million secondary offering of stocks and warrants
("Secondary Offering"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
made various false and misleading statements in connection with
these transactions and the public filings associated with the
same.

The gravamen of the Complaint is that Pareteum, under the direction
of the Individual Defendants, fraudulently overstated its reported
revenues, realized revenue growth rates, and contractual revenue
backlog. When the fraud was revealed and Pareteum announced that it
intended to issue a restatement of past financial statements, the
Company's share price collapsed. The Complaint further asserts that
the Underwriter and Auditor Defendants are liable for the false
financial statements incorporated into the public filings
associated with the Secondary Offering.

In their motions to dismiss the Exchange Act claims, the Defendants
argue that the Complaint fails to show (1) that the Defendants made
actionably false or misleading statements; and (2) that the
Defendants acted with scienter. With respect to the Securities Act
claims, Pareteum and its officers seek to dismiss principally on
the same grounds as their Exchange Act arguments (i.e., no
actionable false statements). Squar Milner argues principally that
its audit opinion is nonactionable and also makes certain standing
arguments. DJSI joins the other Defendants' briefs.

Judge Hellerstein ruled at oral argument that the Complaint
adequately alleged that Pareteum, the Individual Defendants, and
DJSI made materially false and misleading statements for purposes
of applicable claims under the Exchange Act and the Securities Act.
Having considered and rejected the remainder of the Defendants'
arguments, the Judge reserved decision on three issues: (1) whether
the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads scienter for the Exchange Act
claims; (2) whether the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads
"traceability" with respect to the Section 11 claims under the
Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering; and (3)
whether the Plaintiff adequately pleads that Squar Milner made a
false statement of material fact sufficient to give rise to
liability under Section 11.

For the foregoing reasons, and those discussed at oral argument,
Judge Hellerstein denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The
Defendants will file an answer to the operative Complaint within 30
days of the Order. The parties will appear for a case management
conference on Sept. 30, 2021, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom 14D,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York 10007. The Clerk will terminate the open motions
(ECF Nos. 175, 177, 180, 183).

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/un2y2zru from Leagle.com.


PEABODY ENERGY: Bid to Junk Putative Securities Suit in NY Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative class action suit entitled, In Re Peabody
Energy Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 (PKC),
is pending.

On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System brought a lawsuit, styled In Re Peabody Energy
Corporation Securities Litigation No. 1:20-cv-08024 (PKC), against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders (Plaintiffs) who held Company stock between April
3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Securities Class Action).

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts
pertaining to safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella
Mine and the events leading up to a fire at the mine, and that,
after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse
facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to
restart the mine after the fire.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.

On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021,
the Court entered a scheduling order for this matter.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 19, 2021. The
defendants filed a pre-motion letter on April 30, 2021 while the
Plaintiffs' response letter was filed on May 6, 2021.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 7, 2021. The
Plaintiffs' opposition brief to the motion to dismiss was filed on
July 22, 2021.

Additional briefings at this phase of litigation are anticipated to
be completed by the conclusion of August 2021.

Peabody Energy Corporation is involved in mining and sale of
thermal coal to electric utilities and metallurgical coal for
industrial customers. The company was founded in 1883 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PERFORMIX LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performix LLC. The
case is styled as Vanessa Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Performix LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01271-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Performix LLC -- https://performixdriven.com/ -- is located in
Edgewater, Colorado and is part of the Pharmaceutical and Medicine
Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jsmith@bursor.com
                 ltfisher@bursor.com


PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Castillo Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON CASTILLO, MARTA
VALLADARES, ARACELY VALLADARES, CARLOS REYES, YOSELY ESPINAL
HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PERFUME WORLDWIDE INC., PERFUME CENTER OF AMERICA,
INC., SHRI PARSHWA PADMAVATI & CO., LLC, 3OVO LOGISTICS INC.,
TEXVEL, INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS NOS. 1-5, KANAK GOLIA, PIYUSH
GOLIA, PRABHA GOLIA and ROMA GOLIA, Case No. 2:17-cv-02972-AKT
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminary approving of class and collective action
      settlement agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the following settlement class
      under Fed. R .Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) for
      purposes of effectuating the parties’ settlement:

      “All employees of Perfume Worldwide Inc. who performed
      work as non-exempt employees between January 1, 2011 and
      December 31, 2018;"

   3. approving the proposed class notice and distribution
      thereof to the settlement class members in English and
      Spanish;

   4. approving the proposed class action settlement procedure;

   5. appointing Steven J. Moser of the Moser Law Firm, P.C. as
      Class Counsel; and

   6. setting the date for the Fairness Hearing.

   7. dismiss with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41 all claims
      against Perfume Center of America Inc., Shri Parshwa
      Padmavati & Co., LLC, 3OVO Logistics Inc., Texvel, Inc.,
      Kanak Golia, Prabha Golia, and Roma Golia consistent with
      the terms of the settlement agreement.

   8. lifting the Order Staying the Claims of the Opt-In
      Plaintiffs which was issued on September 18, 2018 for the
      purposes of consummating the settlement.

Perfume Worldwide operates an online retail stores. The Company
offers fragrances for men, women, and unisex, gift sets, hair care,
and skin care.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ksm2ee
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 East Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631)824-0200
          E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend lawsuits related to a crude oil release
in May 2015 from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in
Santa Barbara County, California.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State
of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California
Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara
Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response
effort.

Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, and as set forth in the
Consent Decree, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the
company estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. The company
received a number of claims through the claims line and we have
processed those claims and made payments as appropriate.

Nine class action lawsuits were filed against the company; however,
after various claims were either dismissed or consolidated, two
proceedings remain pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

In the first proceeding, the plaintiffs claim two different classes
of claimants were damaged by the release: (i) commercial fishermen
who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters
off the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood caught in those areas; and (ii) owners
and lessees of residential beachfront properties, or properties
with a private easement to a beach, where plaintiffs claim oil from
the spill washed up.

The company is vigorously defending against those claims.

A September 2020 trial date initially set by the Court has been
postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions.

In the second proceeding, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that Plains' right-of-way agreements would not allow
Plains to lay a new pipeline to replace Line 901 and/or the
non-operating segment of Line 903 without paying additional
compensation.

No trial date has been set in that action.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminaling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


POINT PARK: W.D. Pennsylvania Narrows Claims in Figueroa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAFAEL FIGUEROA, et al., Plaintiffs v. POINT PARK
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01484 (W.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

In Spring 2020, the global Covid-19 pandemic necessitated the
closure of campuses worldwide and a temporary transition of
essentially all United States post-secondary instruction to online.
The Plaintiffs (Rafael Figueroa, Kahlil Cabble, Ty'Anthony Scott,
and Ryan Petty) and the putative class members are students who
were participating in the Defendant's on-campus educational program
for the Spring 2020 semester. Defendant Point Park University
("PPU" or "University"), is a private university with a principal
campus located in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The University
offers major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number
of graduate programs. It offers the traditional on-campus
post-secondary degree program in which the Plaintiffs were
enrolled, and which was being provided to them in the first part of
their Spring 2020 semester. It also offers an online/virtual
learning program, under a lower-cost tuition and fee structure.

The university requires, as do some others, that students electing
to "proceed with the online registration process" accept the
"financial registration terms and conditions" set forth in the
one-page document of the same name. The Financial Registration
Terms and Conditions (the "FRTC") provides, as one would expect,
specific payment obligations being assumed by the student. These
include the section headings: Financial Responsibility, Late
Fees/Business (Student Accounts) Hold, Collection Costs and Credit
Reporting and Collection Communications. The final two sections
contain (a) a Withdrawal Policy under which a student who
"officially" drops or withdraws from classes "during the determined
tuition refund periods" is "eligible for a refund of all or a
portion of tuition and fees" and (b) a reservation of PPU's "right
to change the financial registration terms and conditions at any
time", with a recommendation that the student therefore review them
periodically.

Notably, the FRTC does not contain any express reciprocal
obligation on the part of the University whatsoever. It does not,
e.g., contain any express provision obligating PPU to provide
instruction of any kind (in-person or other) or even to process the
student's registration. Nor does it contain any specification of
the amounts or parameters of the charges the student is assertedly
contracting to pay for "tuition, fees, room, board" and unspecified
"other charges". It contains no merger clause or language of
integration. The FRTC is, in other words, precisely what its title
suggests: an unintegrated express documentation of some terms of
particular importance to the University -- i.e, students' payment
obligations.

The Plaintiffs allege that in exchange for amounts charged for
their traditional education, Defendant undertook to provide
benefits and services unique to in-person learning -- such as an
active, urban campus environment "in the heart of Downtown
Pittsburgh"; "a full calendar of on-campus student activities and
events"; and the friendships, collaborations and social
interactions of campus life. These additional benefits and services
are assertedly represented through various PPU materials made
available to students, such as PPU's website, catalogs, promotional
materials, circulars, and other admission papers and publications.
The Plaintiffs therefore allege that, under Pennsylvania law, these
writings contained terms of their implied-in-fact contract with
PPU.

In March 2020, part-way through the Spring semester and in response
to the pandemic and government mandates, PPU closed its campus
facilities and in-person services and activities and moved all
classes to virtual learning platform(s). The Plaintiffs allege that
the cancellation of all in-person campus activity resulted in a
unilateral reduction in benefits and services provided to them. The
benefits provided to the Plaintiffs during the latter part of the
Spring, 2020 semester were similar to those offered to Point Park's
online degree students, who pay a significantly lower tuition. The
University's decision not to provide the agreed upon educational
services and not to provide any refund of the Plaintiffs' tuition
or fees resulted in a breach of the contract between students and
the University, and inequitable retention of funds by the
University.

The Plaintiffs' putative class action brings claims for breach of
contract, and in the alternative, unjust enrichment and conversion
against PPU based on its decisions to close campus and transition
to online learning when it was unable to continue traditional
education services. They seek compensation "commensurate with their
loss of benefits," i.e., partial reimbursement of charges incurred
for tuition, fees, and housing.

The Defendant moved to dismiss on Feb. 3, 2021 and filed its Brief
in Support at ECF No. 26. The Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition and
Defendant's Reply thereto were timely filed at ECF No. 27 and 28,
respectively. There followed three filings in April of Supplemental
Authorities by Defendant and each party's May 2021 supplemental
briefings. The Court has considered the parties' briefs, together
with the cases subsequently cited. It has also conducted a careful
independent review of relevant Pennsylvania law (particularly
regarding the contractual relationship between
students-universities) and a multitude of decisions in nationwide
student-university pandemic refund cases issued both prior and
subsequent to the parties' filings in the action.

Analysis

A. Breach of Contract Under Pennsylvania Law

Under Pennsylvania law, the basic elements of a breach of contract
claim are "(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential
terms, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) resultant damages." In
Pennsylvania, as in other states, "the relationship between a
private educational institution and an enrolled student is
contractual in nature." And, as in other states, a student's claim
for breach of contract must be premised on a specific contractual
undertaking by the university. In Pennsylvania, as elsewhere,
"breach of contract actions brought by a party against a private
college or learning institution are treated as any other
contract."

For the Plaintiffs to maintain a claim for breach of contract, the
Complaint allegations must of course be "sufficient to draw the
reasonable inference that the parties engaged in conduct giving
rise to an implied-in-fact contract" under the presently applicable
standard. And ultimate determinations of a contract's existence and
terms are for the finders of fact.

Judge Lenihan opines that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead an
implied contract under Pennsylvania law "to provide in-person,
on-campus instruction, experiences, and activities." They
specifically allege that PPU promised -- in the official materials
promulgated in electronic and print form during the students'
enrollment -- a particular method of instruction for which students
paid a premium in tuition and fees, but delivered a lower-cost
option which the students had previously declined. The Defendant
points to no contractual exemption from liability for non-delivery
of its traditional educational services. Thus, the Plaintiffs are
"entitled to investigate through discovery whether the Defendant's
retaining all monies despite providing a profoundly altered product
breached a contractual promise." The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
will therefore be denied as to this claim.

B. In the Alternative, Plaintiffs Have Stated a Claim of Unjust
Enrichment or Quantum Meruit

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs (a) may not state a claim
for unjust enrichment as a matter of law because they have an
adequate remedy under their breach of contract theory and (b) fail
to plead facts sufficient to state a claim. The Plaintiffs respond
that their unjust enrichment claim is pled in the alternative and
sufficiently.

The Plaintiffs allege (1) they paid tuition and other fees to PPU,
and PPU provided a traditional in-person on campus education for
the first portion of the Spring 2020 semester and an online
education for the second portion; but (2) it was reasonable for the
Plaintiffs to have expected, in reliance on PPU's specific
representations, a continuation of their traditional education for
the entire Spring semester.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, and
despite PPU's provision of grades and academic credit, Judge
Lenihan holds that it cannot be said as a matter of law that PPU's
actions were not unjust under the circumstances. Whether the
partial failure of consideration alleged was de minimis or
sufficient to justify at least partial reimbursement of tuition
and/or other fees paid to PPU is, as the Plaintiffs duly note, "a
matter of proof" appropriate for a later stage of the proceedings.

In sum, the Judge holds that whether and to what extent the parties
have entered into a contractual relationship for the provision of
in-person on-campus educational services will be better resolved
following discovery. The Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a
claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit in the alternative.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will therefore be denied as to
this claim.

C. Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim for Conversion

The Defendant asserts that under Pennsylvania law, "a claim for
conversion cannot stand when there is a contract between the
parties that governs the same disputed funds." It also asserts that
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege breach of any duty "imposed by
law as a matter of social policy."

Judge Lenihan concurs with other courts to have considered
students' claims of conversion against their universities in a
pandemic tuition/fee restitution context and concluded that such
claim cannot be maintained. First, a plaintiff may not ordinarily
recover for the tort of conversion for a breach of duty that simply
restates a contractual obligation. Moreover, the Plaintiffs simply
cannot bring a conversion claim for refund of an unspecified
pro-rata portion of their tuition and mandatory fees transferred to
and intermingled with other funds held by the Defendant. The
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will therefore be granted as to this
claim.

Conclusion

Judge Lenihan concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims for (a) breach
of an implied contract for a traditional in-person, on-campus
experience for the Spring 2020 semester and (b) unjust enrichment
or quantum meruit in the alternative are not precluded and that,
drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently identified facts that suggest a plausible
entitlement to recovery/restitution. The Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is denied as to those Counts of the Complaint. She further
concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim of
conversion, and the Defendant's Motion is granted as to that Count.
A separate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/v6rzkw from Leagle.com.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Burger FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as Burger v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-06699-VB (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
9, 2021).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

PRA is a debt buyer and debt collector based in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Stipulation of Dismissal of Sites Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN SITES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00704 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge
John T. Copenhaver, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, vacated the
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pending further order of
the Court.

On Nov. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County alleging five individual claims relating to
debt collection practices of the Defendant. He filed a first
amended class action complaint on Oct. 30, 2019, alleging one class
claim individually and on behalf of others similarly situated for
violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act,
W. Va. Code Section 46A-2-127 and 46A-2-128(f). The Defendant
thereafter removed the case to the Court on Oct. 22, 2020,
asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(1)-(11).

On July 12, 2021, the parties filed a notice of settlement
indicating that the action had settled. On Aug. 9, 2021, the
parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stating that the
Plaintiff dismisses the case in its entirety as to Defendant
Portfolio Recovery Associates, with prejudice.

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) states that a plaintiff may voluntarily
dismiss an action without a court order by filing "a stipulation of
dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared," subject to the
provisions of, inter alia, Rule 23(e). Rule 23(e) provides that
"the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class -- or a class
proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement -- may be
settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the
court's approval" and outlines the procedures for obtaining such
approval. Where, as here, no class has been certified or proposed
to be certified for the purposes of settlement, Rule 23(e) is
inapplicable.

Still, the Fourth Circuit has held, in the context of a voluntary
motion to dismiss an action containing individual and class claims,
that before a District Court may consider or approve a voluntary
pre-certification settlement of an action begun as a class action,
the court must, after a careful hearing, determine what claims are
being compromised between the plaintiff and defendant and whether
the settling plaintiff has used the class action claim for unfair
personal aggrandizement in the settlement, with prejudice to absent
putative class members. If, as a result of such hearing, the court
is clearly satisfied that there has been no abuse of the class
action device and no prejudice to absent putative class members, it
may approve the settlement and dismissal without going through with
a certification determination or requiring notice to be given to
absent putative class members.

Judge Copnhaver holds that the parties have not provided any
details regarding the settlement and voluntary dismissal with
prejudice of the action and likewise have not sought court approval
thereof. Accordingly, he ordered the parties submit a joint filing
providing a detailed factual summary of the settlement and
voluntarily dismissal with prejudice and justification for Court
approval thereof. If the parties do not believe court approval is
actually necessary, the filing should provide a legal basis for
reaching such a conclusion.

The stipulation of dismissal with prejudice is vacated pending
further order of the Court.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of the Order to all the
counsel of record and to any unrepresented parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4p9phmhm from Leagle.com.


PREMIERE CREDIT: Heppinstall Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premiere Credit of
North America, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eric Heppinstall,
Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly Situated v.
Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, Velocity Investments, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01451-MEM (M.D. Pa., Aug. 20, 2021).

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

Premiere Credit of North America, LLC --
https://premierecredit.com/ -- offers financial services. The
Company provides accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
          SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 305
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (203) 246-2887
          Email: scott@skolnicklegalgroup.com



QUANTA SERVICES: Benton Seeks $37MM Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiff class
filed a motion for approval of approximately $37.0 million in
attorneys' fees in the class action suit initiated by Lorenzo
Benton.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.

Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies.

The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid
wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and
rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment
and other motions and a bench trial on liability and damages was
held. Liability and damages have been determined by the trial
court, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest
through the date of the trial court's orders, determined to be
approximately $9.5 million.

Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.

The amount determined by the trial court includes damages and
interest, but does not include attorneys' fees or costs.

In July 2021, the plaintiff class filed a motion for approval of
approximately $37.0 million in attorneys' fees.

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Etienne Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE v. RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, LP, et al., Case No. ESX-L-05557-21 was removed from the
New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, to  U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 9, 2021.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-14992-JXN-CLW to the proceeding.

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals.

Resurgent Capital is a manager and servicer of domestic and
international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers.

The Defendants include CACH, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10.[BN]

Plaintiff Katia Etienne, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacquelyn Alena Dicicco, Esq.
          J ROBBIN LAW PLLC
          200 Business Park Drive, Ste 103
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 685-5017
          E-mail: jacquelyn.dicicco@jrobbinlaw.com

RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Meena Reuben.

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against
the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California
Superior Court for San Mateo County.

The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals
for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly
intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the
Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") Sections 631 and
632.7.

Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation
of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages.

On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
extend time for the Company to respond to Reuben's complaint.

The Company has not responded to the complaint.

This litigation is still in its earliest stages. Based on the
information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and
the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not
possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range
of loss that may occur.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.


RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Currently Being Administered
-----------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the
settled putative class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley,
became effective as of March 12, 2021, and is currently being
administered.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended
complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that
the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by
allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver
prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for
reelection, and others.

Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously
liable for the actions of the other co-defendants.

Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and
punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her
claims.

The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January
4, 2018.

On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition
brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on
April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its
memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed
Hurley's vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim
to proceed.

The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018.

Hurley filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The
Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion,
which were fully briefed and are pending decision by the court.

Discovery closed on October 25, 2019.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14,
2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which also has been fully briefed
and is pending decision by the court. The parties mediated the case
before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a
tentative settlement was achieved.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on January
25, 2021, at which time the Court tentatively gave final approval
of the settlement.

The Court thereafter entered its final order and judgment approving
the settlement on February 9, 2021.

The settlement became effective as of March 12, 2021, and is
currently being administered.

RingCentral said, "The condensed consolidated financial statements
include an immaterial accrual for the amount settled."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Moore TCPA Class Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinhood Financial
LLC. The case is captioned as Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-06117-JD (N.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
regarding restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Donato.

Robinhood Financial operates as an institutional brokerage company.
stock brokerage.[BN]

Plaintiff Cooper Moore, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, is represented by

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Sophia Marie Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  srios@bm.net

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, 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
          jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly Michelle Gorton, Esq.
          Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
          Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6584
          Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
          E-mail: kellygorton@dwt.com
                  kenpayson@dwt.com
                  laurenrainwater@dwt.com

RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Discovery in Guerrero Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing
in Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et
al.; Case No RIC1804127.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks, and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.  

On September 2, 2020, the class action lawsuit was amended to
include two additional proposed class representatives.  

This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California's Private
Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments
(Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.;
Case No RIC1804127).  

The parties are currently engaged in discovery and the court has
set a briefing schedule on class certification for mid-2022.  

Ruth's said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter,
including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably
estimated at this time, we have vigorously defended this matter and
intend to continue doing so."

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.


SAFE BOX: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Gilmore Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE GILMORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. SAFE BOX LOGISTICS INC., a California corporation;
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21CV385234 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 5, 2021) alleges
that the Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed
to pay hourly wages, and failed to pay vacation wages, and failed
to pay sick time.

This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class
action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382, because
there is a well-defined community of interest among the persons who
comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and
because Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties likely to be
encountered in managing this case as a class action of behalf of
Hourly Employee Class:

   "All persons employed by FED-EX, including but not limited to
   SAFE BOX and all other contractors and/or any third party
   companies in California during the Relevant Time Period who
   drive and deliver packages."

SafeBox is a leading global logistics, order fulfillment service.
FedEx Corporation, formerly Federal Express Corporation and later
FDX Corporation, is an American multinational shipping & delivery
services and supply chain management company headquartered in
Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          Nolan Dilts, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888- 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com
                  nolan@setarehlaw.com

SAKURA MANDARIN: Huang Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAKURA MANDARIN,
INC., et al. The case is styled as Ye Ming Huang, on his own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SAKURA MANDARIN, INC.
doing business as: BAI WEI formerly doing business as SAKURA
MANDARIN; CHILI BAMBOO LLC doing business as: SPICE 28; DESSERT
POP, INC. doing business as: A LA MOUSSE; WEN HE WANG also known
as: WENHE WANG; JACK CHEN; ANNA CHEN Case No. 2:21-cv-03757 (E.D.
Pa., Aug. 23, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sakura Mandarin is a Chinese restaurant specializing in authentic
Szechuan, Shanghai and Hunan cuisines and dim sum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Thomas, Esq.
          TL LAW GROUP, PC
          SAN JOSE, CA 95131
          Phone: (866) 535-2006
          Fax: (866) 535-2006
          Email: dthomas@tipatents.com


SDH SERVICES WEST: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SDH SERVICES WEST,
LLC, ET AL. The case is styled as MARIA AYALA, ROSA HANDS,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ET AL vs.
SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
SODEXO, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-21-101933 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Aug. 20, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Sodexo (formerly Sodexho Alliance) --
https://www.sodexo.com/home.html -- is a French food services and
facilities management company headquartered in the Paris suburb of
Issy-les-Moulineaux.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 855-786-6355
          Fax: 855-786-6356
          Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com


SEAWORLD PARKS: Simons Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seaworld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Simons,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-01488-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, a subsidiary of SeaWorld
Entertainment Inc., and formerly known as Busch Entertainment
Corporation -- https://seaworldentertainment.com/ -- is an American
theme park and entertainment company headquartered in Orlando,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com


SIERRA CORPORATE: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norwich Commercial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Edward Ayala, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Corporate
Management, Inc., a California, Case No. 21STCV31024 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 23, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Sierra Corporate Management, Inc. --
http://www.sierracorporatemanagement.com/-- is located in Anaheim,
CA, United States and is part of the Office Administrative Services
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          STANSBURY BROWN LAW
          2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
          Venice, CA 90291-5590
          Phone: 323-207-5925
          Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the case,
Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a settlement in
principle.

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business
practices.

The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law.

On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action.

On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon
notice to be sent to members of the collective.

The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire-West privacy
opt out notice until after mediation.

The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery and have
stipulated to continue all relevant discovery and motion deadlines
accordingly. The parties reached a settlement in principle as a
result of a January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the
settlement still need to be worked out and the settlement has to be
documented.

Skechers said, "In the event the settlement is not concluded
successfully, it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

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

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKY LAND: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUZMAN, PEDRO FERREIRA TEJADA, JIMI CALLE, MANUEL MESIAS
PINGUIL, JEFFREY EDWARD ALVARADO, GERMAN MAXIMILIANO BARRERA DE LOS
SANTOS, SEGUNDO CALLE, and LUIS WILFRIDO PINGUIL JUNCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SKY LAND TEMPERING GLASS CORP. and RICKY ZHENG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04673 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
provide appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failing to
comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failing to
furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as glass
technicians, glass polishers, glass stockers, and/or delivery
workers, while performing other miscellaneous duties in New York at
any time from 2014 to 2021.

Sky Land Tempering Glass Corp. is a glass and mirror shop located
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Spectrum Legacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company reached
an agreement in principle with Public School Teachers' Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge Retirement, subject to
final documentation and approval of the Court, to settle the claims
of the Spectrum Legacy class, the cost of which will be defrayed by
third-party insurance.

On July 12, 2019, an amended consolidated class action complaint
filed earlier in 2018 was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin by the Public School
Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge
Retirement against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint added HRG Group, Inc.
("HRG"), the predecessor to the Company, as a defendant and
asserted additional claims against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of HRG shareholders.

The class period of the consolidated amended complaint is from
January 26, 2017 to November 19, 2018, and the plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
and expert fees and costs.

During the year ended September 30, 2020, the Company reached a
proposed settlement resulting in an insignificant loss, net of
third-party insurance coverage and payment, pending final approval
by the Court.

In February 2021, the Court declined to approve the proposed
settlement without prejudice because the Court determined that as a
procedural matter the plaintiff's counsel had not taken the
appropriate actions to be appointed to represent the purported
class of HRG shareholders. The court subsequently appointed
separate counsel to represent the HRG shareholder class.

In August 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle,
subject to final documentation and approval of the Court, to settle
the claims of the Spectrum Legacy class, the cost of which will be
defrayed by third-party insurance.

The Company has not reached a settlement with the HRG shareholder
class and the Company intends to vigorously defend the HRG
litigation.

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manages the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in North America, Europe,
Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions
through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.


STAMPS.COM: Agreement in Principle Reached in Karinski Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al,
Case 2:19-cv-01828 class action suit.

On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.

One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without
prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.


Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in August 2019,
purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8,
2019 (the "Securities Class"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on public disclosures that
were purportedly rendered misleading based on certain uses of
reseller rates.

The company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2019, and the
company's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part
in January 2020. The Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification on November 9, 2020, and the Court of Appeals granted
the company's request to appeal that order on March 10, 2021.

On May 28, 2021, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Action,
the Company and each of the other defendants in the Securities
Class Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Securities Class Action.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff,
on behalf of the class, would release the Securities Defendants
from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the
Securities Class Action and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in
exchange for payment of $100 million to or on behalf of the class
by the Company (a portion of which is expected to be funded by
insurance proceeds).

The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a final
stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and
approval by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

Stamps.com said, "If these conditions are satisfied, the proposed
settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Action
against the Company and each of the other Securities Defendants. In
the event that we are unable to execute a final stipulation of
settlement and obtain Court approval, we and all other Securities
Defendants will continue to defend vigorously against the claims
asserted in the Securities Class Action."

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.


SUN VALLEY: Pineda Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LETICIA PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P. VALLE DEL SOL
JONES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 19CECG03846, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01265-NONE-SKO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Sun Valley Packing, L.P. is a packaging supply store in
California.

Valle Del Sol Jones, LLC is a provider of community health services
in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
        
         Thomas E. Campagne, Esq.
         CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE
         A Professional Corporation
         Airport Office Center
         1685 North Helm Avenue
         Fresno, CA 93727
         Telephone: (559) 255-1637
         Facsimile: (559) 252-9617
         E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com

T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO: Court Enters Class Cert. Scheduling order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
et. al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, T.W. LATH-N-STUCCO, INC., et. al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01617-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge  Kathleen M.
Tafoya entered a scheduling order:

   a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties      September 25, 2021
      and Amendment of Pleadings:

   b. Discovery Cut-off for class          February 11, 2022
      certification:

   c. Dispositive Motion Deadline:         November 17, 2021

   d. Defendants' Motion for               October 11, 2021
      Partial Summary Judgment:

   e. Plaintiffs' Motion for               March 11, 2022
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 Class
      Certification:

This case arises from the Defendants' employment of the Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated to perform manual labor in their
Colorado Springs-based stucco business. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants failed to pay them and other members of the alleged
classes minimum and overtime wages required by state and federal
law.

The Defendants deny the allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint,
deny any violations of the statutes referenced therein, and deny
any violations of federal or state wage or
overtime laws.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJE2n9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway -- Suite B
          Boulder, CO. 80304
          Telephone: (303)-305-8230
          E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul W. Hurcomb, Esq.
          Jessica L. Kyle, Esq.
          SPARKS WILLSON, P.C.
          24 South Weber Street, Suite 400
          Colorado Springs, CO. 80903
          Telephone: (719)-634-5700
          E-mail: pwh@sparkswillson.com
                  jlk@sparkswillson.com

TAMKO BUILDING: Court Enters Revised Class Cert. Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN MELNICK, et al., v.
TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JWL-KGG (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth G. Gale entered a revised scheduling
order:

                  Event                    Deadline/Setting

   Supplementation of initial           40 days before
   disclosures                          completion of discovery

   Initial discovery on class           June 30, 2022
   certification completed

   Experts disclosed by plaintiff       Jan. 13, 2022
                                        Deposed by Feb. 11, 2022

   Experts disclosed by defendant       March 11, 2022
                                        Deposed by Aprl 20, 2022

   Rebuttal experts disclosed           May 26, 2022
                                        Deposed by June 30, 2022

   Motions to amend                     Sept. 24, 2021

   Motion to certify class              July 29, 2022

   All other potentially                Set at subsequent  
   dispositive motions                  conference
   (e.g., summary  judgment)

   Proposed pretrial order due          TBD

   Pretrial conference                  TBD

   Trial                                TBD

TAMKO is a manufacturer of residential roofing shingles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38honmd at no extra charge.[CC]

UDEMY INC: Williams Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Udemy, Inc. The case
is styled as Marion Williams, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Udemy, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06489 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 23, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Udemy -- https://www.udemy.com/ -- is an online learning and
teaching marketplace with over 155000 courses and 40 million
students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs' appeal
from the court-granted motion for judgment in the case entitled,
Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel
Service, Inc., remains pending.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.

At this time, the company do not believe that any loss associated
with any such matter will have a material impact on our operations
or financial condition.

One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court.

In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour
claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Faces Megahomes Suit in Court of Federal Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S.A. The case is
captioned as Megahomes Acquisitions, LLC, et al. v.  U.S.A., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01669-LAS (Ct. Fed. Cl., Aug. 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over issues related to real estate demanding
$25 billion in damages. It also alleges violation of the Tucker
Act.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Loren A. Smith.[BN]

Plaintiffs Megahomes Acquisitions, Sondra A. Riley and Cynthia G.
Meyn are represented by:

          Mark K Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: mark@wasvarylaw.com

UNITED STATES: Jensen Files Suit in E.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph Biden Jr., et
al. The case is styled as Joseph B. Jensen Sr., JBJ, a minor child
individually and on behalf of similarly situated Individuals v.
Joseph R. Biden Jr., in his official capacity as President of the
United States; Jay R Inslee, in his official capacity as Governor
of Washington State; Anthony S Fauci, in his official capacity as
Director for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases; Center For Disease Control and Prevention; National
Institute of Health; United States Food and Drug Administration;
Case No. 4:21-cv-05119-SAB (E.D. Wash., Aug. 23, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. --
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-biden/ -- is an
American politician who is the 46th and current president of the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Enters Case Management & Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE OKAVAGE GROUP, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC and MATHEW ISHBIA, Case No.
3:21-cv-00448-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge  Brian J. Davis
entered a case management and scheduling order:

   Mandatory Initial Disclosures                 Oct. 29, 2021
   (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a)(1))

   Certificate of Interested Persons             COMPLETED
   and Corporate Disclosure Statement

   Motions to Add Parties or to                  Jan. 10, 2022
   Amend Pleadings

   Disclosure of Expert Reports
                      Plaintiff:                 June 15, 2022
                      Defendant:                 July 15, 2022
                      Rebuttal:                  Aug. 11, 2022

   Deadline to move for class                    Aug. 31, 2022
   certification

   Discovery Deadline:                           Jan. 13, 2023

   Mediation Deadline:                           Sept. 1, 2023

   Motions In Limine:                            Jan. 10, 2024

United Wholesale provides mortgage lending services. The Company
offers online financing services and mortgage loans to home
purchasers.

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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Lam Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tom Lam, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, as
the public body corporate of University of Florida, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA, Case No. 2021 CA 001026 was removed from the Eighth
Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida on August 20,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00137-AW-GRJ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

The University of Florida Board of Trustees --
https://trustees.ufl.edu/ -- is the governing body of the
University of Florida, the Flagship University for the State
University System of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          ROBERT JACOB SNIFFEN, ESQ.
          SNIFFEN & SPELLMAN PA - TALLAHASSEE FL
          123 N MONROE ST
          TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
          Phone: (850) 205-1996
          Fax: (850) 205-3004
          Email: rsniffen@sniffenlaw.com


US OIL FUND: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.

On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC (USCF), the
company (USO), John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed by purported
shareholder Robert Lucas.  

The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.  

The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re:
United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.

On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under
the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.  

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.  

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.  

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.  

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F.
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.  

The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.

USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and have moved for their dismissal.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It
operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as
amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full
management control to its general partner, United States Commodity
Funds LLC ("USCF").


VELOCITY RAIL: Irvin Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM IRVIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VELOCITY RAIL SOLUTIONS, INC.; A.
STUCKI COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV21463, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 19,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-06733 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, final
wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
produce records, failure to produce records, and unfair business
practices.

Velocity Rail Solutions, Inc. is a provider of direct-to-locomotive
fueling services, headquartered in Draper, Utah.

A. Stucki Company is a manufacturer of railcar dynamic control
products, headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Matthew E. Farmer, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
         18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 705-3000
         Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
         E-mail: mfarmer@littler.com

VIVINT INC: Fitzhenry Suit Transferred to D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Vivint
Inc., DSI Distributing Inc doing business as: DSI Systems, John Doe
Corporation, RS&I, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00789, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah on Aug. 23, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00501-JCB to the
proceeding.

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

Vivint Smart Home, Inc. -- https://www.vivint.com/ -- is a public
smart home company in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          201 S MAIN STE 800
          SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2221
          Phone: (801) 531-3000
          Email: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gonzalez Suit Moved from State Court to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GONZALEZ v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. MER-L001632-21 was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County to the U.S.
District Court for District of New Jersey (Camden) on Aug. 9,
2021.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-15026-NLH-MJS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over product liability-related claims.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen
cars.The Defendants include Audi AG, a German corporation, and
Volkswagon AG, a German corporation.[BN]

Plaintiff Hernan A. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          C. Michael Rowan, Jr., Esq.
          Homer B. Ramsey, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC
          354 Eisenhower Parkway
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 535-8840
          Facsimile: (973) 535-8841
          E-mail: mrowan@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  hramsey@herzfeld-rubin.com

WALMART INC: Carr Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Claudia Carr, Lashawna Wicker, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc.,
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS2011243 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01429-DOC-KK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth H Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
          YOON LAW APC
          One Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 612-0988
          Fax: (213) 947-1211
          Email: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
                 syasuda@yoonlaw.com

               - and -

          George Samuel Cleaver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. SAMUEL CLEAVER
          3660 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 922
          Los Angeles, CA 90020
          Phone: (213) 568-4088
          Email: sam@gscleaverlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew R Gershman, Esq.
          Robert J Herrington, Esq.
          Ryan Christopher Bykerk, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 586-7700
          Fax: (310) 586-7800
          Email: gershmanm@gtlaw.com
                 herringtonr@gtlaw.com
                 bykerkr@gtlaw.com


WE RAISE YOUR CREDIT: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against We Raise Your Credit
Score Inc. The case is styled as A'sha Hall, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. We Raise Your Credit
Score Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03440-MLB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 23, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Credit Repair
Organizations.

We Raise Your Credit Score Inc. -- https://weraisecredit.com/ -- is
a LA based credit repair company for a credit analysis or small
business loan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (404) 254-0842
          Email: aw@wsjustice.com
                 js@wsjustice.com



WEST MASS: Seeks Extension to File Conditional Cert. Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE LAQUIDARA
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
KIMBERLY BRUNELLE, and CHRISTOPHER BRUNELLE, WEST MASS MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC d/b/a MAGIC LANTERN, and MARK PESSOLANO, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-30039-KAR (D. Mass.), the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs
West Mass Management Group, LLC, Kimberly Brunelle and Christopher
Brunelle, ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of 21
days in which to respond to the Motion for Conditional
Certification filed by Plaintiff Laquidara.

On August 11, 2021, Attorney Savytska filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification on behalf of Plaintiff. She also sent the
undersigned a settlement demand and related calculations.

The West Mass Defendants' response to Plaintiff's certification
motion is currently due to be filed on or before August 25, 2021.

The West Mass Defendants require additional time to prepare their
response to the certification motion. They would also like to
explore the possibility of an early settlement before incurring
additional costs defending the case.

The allowance of this Motion should not in any way impede the
progress of this case, and no party will be prejudiced by the
requested extension, West Mass Defendants say.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jgluZw at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs West Mass
Management Group d/b/a Magic Lantern, Kimberly Brunelle and
Christopher Brunelle, are:

          Erica E. Flores, Esq.
          SKOLER, ABBOTT & PRESSER, P.C.
          One Monarch Place, Suite 2000
          Springfield, MA 01144
          Telephone: (413) 737-4753
          Facsimile: (413) 787-1941
          E-mail: eflores@skoler-abbott.com

WINCO HOLDINGS: Faces Putman Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winco Holdings, Inc.
The case is captioned as Geneva Putman vs. Winco Holdings, Inc., an
Idaho Corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00305825-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 9, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged employment-related claims.

Winco Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, retails bulk food, meat, deli, seafood,
and bakery products. The Defendants include Does 1-50.[BN]

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Ave, Ste. C204
          San Diego, CA 92110-2933
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
          Website: www.jcl-lawfirm.com

YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit pending before the Northern District of
California.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations on February 9,
2017. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.

On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a
class in this action.

The case remains pending.

Yelp said, "The Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the
probability of incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss,
if any, from the lawsuit."

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

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


ZALE DELAWARE: Kainth Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TARVINDER KAINTH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ZALE DELAWARE, INC. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-592138, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on August 19, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06439 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay lawful wages including overtime,
failure to provide meal periods and permit rest breaks, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Zale Delaware, Inc. is a retailer of jewelry, with its principal
place of business in Akron, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
         Emily A. Papania, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 526-7900
         Facsimile: (949) 526-7901
         E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com
                 eapapania@vorys.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 ***