/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210831.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 31, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 168

                            Headlines

109-19 FOOD: Amador Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
3D SYSTEMS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 13
3M COMPANY: Hosch Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Wiley Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Class Settlement in Rosi Has Prelim. Approval

ADAPT HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 27 Deadline
ADVANCED CALL: Walker Seeks Unpaid Wages for Customer Service Reps
ALLIED PILOTS: Krakowski Files Certiorari Petition in RLA Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Lithium-Ion Battery Cells Defective, Crosby Says
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Court Tosses Jackson's 2nd Amended Complaint

ANNOVIS BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
APPLE INC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit With U.S. App Developers
ARDELYX INC: Faces Siegel Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
BELDEN INC: Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits Underway
BELL BLVD: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

BEN'S CRAB: Faces Barillas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
BENEFIS HEALTH: Defrauds Vehicle Accident Patients, Blaine Says
BIMBO BAKERIES: Bartosiake Sues Over "Chocolate Fudge Iced" Label
BLUE NILE: Johnson Appeals Dismissal of Wiretapping Case
CALYX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Proceeds From Gas Sales

CAPITAL ONE: Fiorarancio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
CARLOTZ INC: Faces Erdman Putative Class Suit in New York
CARLOTZ INC: Faces Turk Putative Class Suit in New York
CARLOTZ INC: Faces Widuck Putative Class Suit in New York
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 26 Deadline

CB HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Benitez Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sciabacucchi Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
CITY CATERING: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Suit Says
COBRA SPECIAL: Refuses to Pay Proper Wages, Marchisio Suit Says

COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Mask Mandate
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bassett Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Final Approval of Chalian Suit Settlement Appealed
DANDY DEL MAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Suit Says
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Marhefka Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to N.D. Tex.

EBIX INC: Ct. Appoints Rahul Saraf as Lead Plaintiff in Teifke Suit
ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss Hunter Securities Class Suit Pending
ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Class Suit Still Stayed
ELANCO ANIMAL: Seresto Collar Related Suit Underway
ELEZAJ & SONS: Cordero Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY: Faces Amaya Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS: Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
FIAT CHRYSLER: Hall Appeals Breach of Contract Suit Dismissal
FIBROGEN INC: Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Pending
FIRST MERCHANTS: Overdraft Fees Related Suit Ongoing

FULTON FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Kress Settlement Pending
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Khami Hits Share Drop from Generator Recall
GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Shifter Defect, Bertagnolli Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Sandofsky Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
GOOGLE LLC: SkinnySchool Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.

GOSSAMER BIO: Trial in Kuhne Class Suit Set for Dec. 19, 2022
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Deposition in James Lee Suit Partly Limited
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Townsley Suit Over Unpaid Wages
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Kaur Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREATER NEVADA: Skogmo Files Suit in D. Nevada

GREEN ROSE: Faces Vega Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Underway
HAMMERHEAD TERMITE: Garzon FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HANCOCK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay OT Wages for Inspectors, Dover Claims
HAWAI'I: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial in Chatman Suit

HAWAI'I: Appeals Provisional Class Cert. Ruling in Chatman Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: Ramirez Purported Shareholder Class Suit Closed
HF FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
HOLY SEE: Faces Class Suit Over Childhood Clergy Sexual Abuse
IDEAL IMAGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says

IMMUNOVANT INC: IMVT-1401 Related Putative Class Suit Underway
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Court Tosses Canez's Amended Securities Suit
INTRICON CORP: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Awaits Court Approval
J.B. 366: Faces Ayala Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JAMES DOLAN: Chair Filed Unsworn Declaration for Stockholder Suit

JUUL LABS: Cashion School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Chisholm Trail Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Forest Grove School Says
JUUL LABS: Monroe School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Indiana
JUUL LABS: Newcastle School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss NY Putative Class Suit Pending
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
KANZHUN LIMITED: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 10 Deadline
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Thant Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
KASHI SALES: Misrepresented Cereal Bars, Harris Class Suit Alleges

KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
KEYSTONE RV: Cole Appeals Judgment in RV Health Hazard Suit
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Jolly Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Landers Sues Over Defective Ventilators
LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NCWHA

LANDS' END: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Gilbert Suit
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Student Fee Claims
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT ARD: Plumbers Union Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del.
MAPLEBEAR INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Levine Suit Says

MARINO PERFORMANCE: Class Certification Order in Zuniga Affirmed
MATTEL INC: Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper Underway
MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Ongoing
MDL 2244: Murphy's Hip Implant Case Moved to N.D. Tex.
MDL 2738: Valdez's Talcum Powder Liability Row Moved to D. N. J.

MDL 2741: Salas' Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2804: Harris County Hospital v. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2875: Payne v. Camber Pharma Transferred to D.N.J.
MDL 2913: Browne v. JUUL Labs Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2924: Golden v. Sanofi-Aventis Case Transferred to S.D. Fla.

MDL 2989: Thompson v. Robinhood Fin'l. Transferred to S.D. Fla.
MDL 3010: 19 Antitrust Lawsuits Consolidated in S.D. New York
MERCK & CO: Zetia Related Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Suits Ongoing in Arizona
MICHIGAN STATE: NCLA Represents COVID-19 Survivors in Lawsuit

NATI TRANCAS: Faces Mason ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
NATIONAL UNION: Dubuisson Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
NCL CORP: Dismissal of Misleading COVID-19 Statements Suit Final
NEW ALBERTSONS: Files Writ of Mandamus in Piazza FLSA Suit
NEW LINE: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Construction Workers

NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Miner Suit
OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Racism
OUREM IRON: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fajardo Suit Claims
PAPA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Andersen Class Suit Says
PARADIES SHOPS: $350K Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Wins Approval

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Unlawfully Charges Sales Tax, Class Suit Says
PENUMBRA INC: California Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

POPULAR INC: Asks Court to Tag Summary Ruling Bid in Diaz Unopposed
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Discovery in Soto-Melendez Suit Ongoing
POPULAR INC: Dismissal of Maura Putative Class Suit Appealed
PRECIGEN INC: Abailla Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway

PROFESSIONAL PROBATION: Summary Judgment in Malone Suit Affirmed
PROFLAME INC: Faces Pernal Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Faces Class Action Challenging Pre-Trial Fees
READING INTERNATIONAL: Settlements Reached in Brown & Wagner Suits
REALREAL INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Marin County Suit

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
RECRO PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Related to IV Meloxicam
RED ONE: Pichasaca Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Thompson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SAN FRANCISCO USD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Student A ADA Suit

SANMEDICA INTL: Court Amends Protective Order in Pizana Class Suit
SCIPLAY CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Reed Pending
SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
SESEN BIO INC: Faces Bibb Suit in New York Over Drop in Share Price
SGE MANAGEMENT: Court Awards Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Torres Suit

SHUN LEE PALACE: Court Moves Class Cert. Filing Deadline to Nov. 17
SOFAS-N-MORE: Underpays Laborers and Stockers, Jimenez Suit Claims
SUNSET FOOD: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Railey BIPA Suit
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Daruwalla Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach

T-MOBILE USA: Faces Espanoza Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
T-MOBILE USA: Metzger Sues Over Data Breach
TD BANK: New Jersey Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Campagna Class Suit
TRADE DESK: Faces Class Action in Delaware
TRICIDA INC: Bid to Nix Pardi Putative Class Suit Pending

TYSON FOODS: Settlement with Turkey Purchasers Gets Initial OK
TYSON FOODS: Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
UNITED SERVICES: Faces Mapes Suit Over Disclosed Customers' Data
VERRA MOBILITY: Class Certification Ruling in Brantley Appealed
VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Lewis Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Parks Says
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Karp Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
WAITR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit
WAITR HOLDINGS: BCC Has Until October to File Class Status Bid
WASHINGTON PRIME: Cousinou Putative Class Suit in Ohio Underway

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: Paymon Appeals Judgment in Tuition Fee Suit
WELLS FARGO: Gerges CARES Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
WELSPUN PIPES: 8th Cir. Vacates $1 Attys.' Fee Award in Vines Suit
WICHITA STATE: $215K in Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Bahnmaier
WILKS GROUP: Ross Seeks OT Pay for Sales Associates Under FLSA

WOKCANO CULVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Son Suit Alleges
WORKHORSE GROUP: Weis Putative Class Suit Underway
YALLA GROUP: Faces Crass Securities Suit Over ADSs Price Drop
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 31
[*] Canadian Lithium-Ion Batteries Price-Fixing Class Suit Settled

[*] Navigating Jurisdictional Issues in Class Action Litigation

                            *********

109-19 FOOD: Amador Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS AMADOR, DARWIN ORTIZ, and MARIO AVILA,, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 109-19 FOOD CORP.,
RUHANA FOOD INTERNATIONAL LLC, LIBERTY WHOLESALE FOOD CORP., 241-11
LINDEN FOOD CORP., 16611 FOOD CORP., RAMIZA FOOD CORP., 351 N.
CENTRAL FOOD CORP., FOOD FARM CORP., FOOD FARM GROUP, INC., SHEAK
RIPON a/k/a "RONNIE SHEIKH", and SYEDA SHAHTAJ, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-04633 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed to
her pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs worked as butchers and general grocery employees at
Defendants' grocery stores located in Queens and Nassau counties in
New York. For their work, despite being non-exempt employees, the
Plaintiffs were paid flat weekly rates that did not provide
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and
sometimes fell below the applicable minimum wage. The Plaintiffs
and Defendants' other employees also did not receive spread of
hours premiums, proper wage notices or wage statements, the lawsuit
says.

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

The Defendants operated four supermarket locations jointly and/or
as a single entity: the Liberty Avenue Location, the Linden Blvd.
Location, the Valley Stream Location and the Francis Lewis
Location.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3D SYSTEMS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the deadline for Lead
Plaintiff in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled,
In re 3D Systems Securities Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-01920-NGG-TAM
(E.D.N.Y.), to file his Consolidated Amended Complaint is September
13, 2021.

The Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative
stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The original Complaint, which was filed on April 9, 2021, alleges
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and misleading statements and omissions, and that the current and
former executive officers named as defendants are control persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The original Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between May 6, 2020
and March 1, 2021, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class.

On July 14, 2021, the Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff for the
putative class and approved his choice of Lead Counsel.

The deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file his Consolidated Amended
Complaint is September 13, 2021, and the deadline for defendants to
move, answer, or otherwise respond is November 12, 2021.

3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through
subsidiaries in North America and South America, Europe and the
Middle East and the Asia Pacific region.


3M COMPANY: Hosch Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELLA HOSCH, 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-02706-RMG (D.S.C., August 23, 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 kidney cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Wiley Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK WILEY, 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-02707-RMG (D.S.C., August 23, 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.

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 thyroid 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.

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

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Class Settlement in Rosi Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA ROSI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS, INC., NEAL
WALKER, FRANK RUFFO, KAMIL ALI-JACKSON, and BRETT FAIR, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-7118 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J.
Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Lead Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
the Settlement.

Lead Plaintiff Robert Fulcher, on behalf of himself and the
Settlement Class, and (b) Defendant Aclaris, and Indivisual
Defendants Neal Walker, Frank Ruffo, Kamil Ali-Jackson, and Brett
Fair, have determined to fully, finally and forever compromise,
settle, release, resolve, relinquish, waive and discharge each and
every Released Claim against each of the Defendants and Released
Persons on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated July 30, 2021 subject to approval of the Court.

The Lead Plaintiff has made an application, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation,
certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement
only, and allowing notice to Settlement Class Members.

Judge Liman has read and considered: (a) the Lead Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, and the papers
filed and arguments made in connection therewith; and (b) the
Stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Judge certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating
the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Aclaris
Securities between May 8, 2018 and August 12, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

The Judge finds and concludes that pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the
Settlement only, Lead Plaintiff Robert Fulcher is an adequate class
representative and certifies him as the Class Representative for
the Settlement Class. He also appoints Lead Counsel as the Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Judge preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the
Settlement Hearing to be conducted.

The Settlement Hearing is set for November 30, 2021, a date that is
at least 100 calendar days from the date of the Order, at 11:00
a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007-1312.

Judge Liman approves, as to form and content, the Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, and the Summary Notice, as revised by order of August 18,
2021 A-2, and A-3, respectively.

The Lead Counsel is authorized to retain the firm of Strategic
Claims Services to supervise and administer the notice procedure as
well as the processing of claims.

Not later than September 8, 2021, 21 calendar days after the Court
signs and enters the Order, the Claims Administrator will commence
mailing the Notice and the Proof of Claim to all potential
Settlement Class Members who or which can be identified with
reasonable effort, and to be posted on its website at
www.strategicclaims.net. Not later than 14 calendar days after the
Notice Date, the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice
to be published once in the national edition of Investor's Business
Daily and once over the GlobeNewswire. At least seven calendar days
prior to the Settlement Hearing, the Lead Counsel will serve on the
Defendants' counsel and file with the Court proof, by affidavit or
declaration, of such mailing and publishing.

All reasonable costs incurred in identifying the Settlement Class
Members and notifying them of the Settlement as well as in
administering the Settlement will be paid as set forth in the
Stipulation without further order of the Court.

Nominees who purchased or otherwise acquired Aclaris Securities for
the beneficial ownership of Settlement Class Members during the
Settlement Class Period will send the Notice and the Proof of Claim
to all such beneficial owners/purchasers of Aclaris Securities
within 10 calendar days after receipt thereof, or send a list of
the names, addresses, and/or email addresses of such beneficial
owners/purchasers to the Claims Administrator within 10 calendar
days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims Administrator
will promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim or email a link of
the Notice and Proof of Claim to such beneficial
owners/purchasers.

The Claims Administrator shall, if requested, reimburse nominees or
custodians out of the Settlement Fund solely for their reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing notice to beneficial
owners/purchasers, up to $0.15 plus postage at the current presort
rate used by the Claims Administrator per Notice and Proof of
Claim; $0.05 per Notice and Claim Form transmitted by email; or
$0.05 per name, mailing address, and email address provided to the
Claims Administrator, which expenses would not have been incurred
except for the sending of such notice, and subject to further order
of the Court with respect to any dispute concerning such
reimbursement.

Fifteen business days after the later of: (i) entry of the Order,
and (ii) provision to the Defendants of all information necessary
to effectuate a transfer of funds, Aclaris and/or the Defendants'
insurers will cause $2.65 million in cash to be paid to the Escrow
Agent pursuant to the Stipulation.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be
distributed or returned pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further
order(s) of the Court.

Settlement Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement
will complete and submit Proofs of Claim in accordance with the
instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise,
all Proofs of Claim must be postmarked or submitted electronically
no later than seven calendar days after the date of the Settlement
Hearing.

Any Person falling within the definition of the Settlement Class
may, upon request, be excluded or "opt out" from the Settlement
Class. Any such Person must submit to the Claims Administrator a
request for exclusion such that it is received by November 9, 2021,
21 calendar days before the date of the Settlement Hearing.

The Lead Counsel will cause to be provided to the Defendants'
counsel copies of all Requests for Exclusion, and any written
revocation of Requests for Exclusion, promptly upon receipt and as
expeditiously as possible, and in any event not less than 14
calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing.

Any Settlement Class Member may file a written objection to the
proposed Settlement and show cause, if he, she, or it has any
cause, why the proposed Settlement of the Litigation should or
should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, why a
judgment should or should not be entered thereon, why the Plan of
Allocation should or should not be approved, why attorneys' fees
and expenses should or should not be awarded to counsel for the
Lead Plaintiff, or why the compensatory award to Lead Plaintiff
should or should not be approved, no later than November 9, 2021,
21 calendar days before the date of the Settlement Hearing, and
said objections, papers, and briefs are sent to the Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007-1312, received by November 9, 2021, 21 calendar
days before the date of the Settlement Hearing.

The Lead Counsel and the Defendants' counsel will promptly furnish
each other with copies of any and all objections that come into
their possession.

All opening briefs and supporting documents in support of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and any application by the
counsel for the Lead Plaintiff for attorneys' fees and expenses or
by the Lead Plaintiff for her expenses will be filed and served by
October 26, 2021, 35 calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing.
Replies to any objections will be filed and served by November 23,
2021, seven calendar days before the Settlement Hearing.

The Plan of Allocation and any application by counsel for Lead
Plaintiff for attorneys' fees or expenses or Lead Plaintiff for her
compensatory award will be considered separately from the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. At or after the
Settlement Hearing, the Court will determine whether the Plan of
Allocation proposed by Lead Counsel, and any application for
attorneys' fees or payment of expenses should be approved.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all proceedings in the
Litigation are stayed, except as may be necessary to implement the
Settlement or comply with the terms of the Stipulation or other
agreement of the Settling Parties. Pending final determination of
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved, neither the
Lead Plaintiff nor any Settlement Class Member, either directly or
indirectly, representatively, or in any other capacity, will
commence or prosecute against any of the Released Persons any
action or proceeding in any court or tribunal asserting any of the
Released Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/a64zh9m from Leagle.com.


ADAPT HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Howard G. Smith Reminds future investors September 27,
2021 Adapt Health Corp. ("Adapt Health" or "Company") (NASDAQ:
AHCO) Securities November 11, 2019 When July 16, 2021,
Comprehensive ("class period").

Investors who are losing money on their investment in Adapt Health
are advised to contact their law firm. Howard G. Smith To discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com..

on July 19, 2021, Jehoshaphat Research, among others, published a
report claiming that Adapt Health masked its true organic growth as
follows: "We are actively changing past organic growth numbers to
be higher without disclosure of changes. Management claims an 8-10%
organic growth trajectory (and reflects consensus estimates), but
AHCO is actually experiencing a double-digit organic growth
trajectory. Non-GAAP Disclosure Regulations that companies face
major problems."

Adapt Health's share price fell on this news $ 1.51 Close per share
or at about 6% $ 23.96 Per share July 19, 2021, Which hurt
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action not only made a materially
false and / or misleading statement by the defendant throughout the
class action period, but also disclosed materially unfavorable
facts about the company's business, operations and outlook. Claims
not. Specifically, the defendant did not disclose to investors: (1)
Adapt Health misrepresented the organic growth trajectory by
retroactively expanding past organic growth numbers without
disclosing changes, in violation of SEC regulations. (2) Therefore,
the Company has greatly exaggerated its financial outlook. (3) As a
result, Defendant's positive statement regarding our business,
operations and outlook is substantially misleading and / or lacks
reasonable grounds at all relevant times. rice field.

If you purchase or acquire Adapt Health securities during your
class, you may move to court at the latest. September 27, 2021 Ask
the court to appoint you as the main plaintiff if you meet certain
legal requirements. No action is required at this time to become a
member of a class proceeding. You can retain the lawyer of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
proceedings. If you would like to know more about this class
action, or if you have any questions about this announcement or
your rights or interests in these matters, please contact us.
Howard G. Smith, EsquireOf the law firm Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by phone
(215) 638-4847, toll-free (888) 638-4847, or by email
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.comOr visit our website.
www.howardsmithlaw.com..

This press release may be considered a lawyer advertisement in some
jurisdictions under applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

ADVANCED CALL: Walker Seeks Unpaid Wages for Customer Service Reps
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA WALKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00630 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 12, 2021) is a
collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
brought on behalf of Plaintiff Donna Walker, individually, and on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated hourly-paid customer
service representatives as a class against Advanced Call-- all of
whom were employed by Defendant during the three years preceding
the filing of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service
representatives seek damages for those who have worked for
Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of this
lawsuit.

The unpaid overtime wage claims of Plaintiff and those similarly
situated are unified through common theories of Defendant's FLSA
violations.

Ms. Walker was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid customer
service representative during the three year period immediately
preceding the filing of this Complaint.

The Defendant provides call center services to third-party business
customers, such as Bank of America, on a nationwide basis.
Defendant has recruited and employed hundreds of customer service
representatives, such as Plaintiff and those similarly situated, to
provide services to customers of Bank of America and other
third-party business entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

ALLIED PILOTS: Krakowski Files Certiorari Petition in RLA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Krakowski, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled In re: AMR Corporation, Debtor, JOHN KRAKOWSKI, et al.,
Petitioners v. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents, Case
No. 21-278.

Response is due on September 24, 2021.

John Krakowski, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled JOHN KARKOWSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case Nos. 19-3506, 19-4378. The Court of
Appeals issued its Judgment February 1, 2021. A petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc was timely filed February 16, 2021
and denied March 24, 2021.

The question presented is: Where a labor union imposed as part of
its collective bargaining agreement a seniority system that
admittedly discriminated in bad faith against a disfavored employee
group at a time when the union owed the disfavored employees no
duty of fair representation because it did not yet represent them,
may the union subsequently, after the duty of fair representation
to those employees has attached, agree to re-implement the same
discriminatory seniority system following elimination of the
contractual status quo by a bankruptcy court order under 11 U.S.C.
Section 1113 approving the employer's abrogation of the collective
bargaining agreement and its seniority system?

The court of appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
158(d)(1) from the final judgments of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in a pair of appeals to
that district court from the final orders of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The
bankruptcy court orders were entered in two separate but related
adversary actions. The district court had jurisdiction to hear the
appeals from the bankruptcy court's final orders under 28 U.S.C.
Section 158(a)(1).

This was a consolidated appeal from two separate judgments. The
first case, referred to as Krakowski I, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May
1, 2012, Case No. 12-cv-00954-JAR. The second case, referred to as
Krakowski II, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on March 3, 2013, Case No.
13-cv-00838-RWS.

The statutes involved in the case are: (1) the Railway Labor Act,
specifically 45 U.S.C. Section 152, which is the section of the RLA
granting the collective bargaining representative, or union, the
exclusive right to represent the members of its collective
bargaining unit, which exclusive right gives rise to the union's
duty of fair representation; and (2) 11 U.S.C. Section 1113, the
section of the Bankruptcy Code authorizing an employer who is a
debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy to, among other things, abrogate
its collective bargaining agreement with a union representing the
employer's employees.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Apellants-Petitioners John Krakowski, et al. are
represented by:

          Joe David Jacobson, Esq.
          Allen P. Pressm Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
          222 South Central Ave., Suite 550
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899-9790
          E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Lithium-Ion Battery Cells Defective, Crosby Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CROSBY and CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-01083 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 13, 2021)
alleges that Amazon engaged in an unfair and/or deceptive business
practice by falsely advertising, marketing, and selling defective,
and often dangerous lithium-ion 18650 battery cells and products
containing them.

Lithium-ion 18650 batteries are marketed and sold by Amazon to be
used in consumer devices, including laptops, flashlights, cameras,
lasers, measurement tools, children's toys, battery packs,
hoverboards, and e-cigarettes.

Amazon allegedly makes numerous false and misleading
representations about the characteristics of the batteries. Amazon
misrepresents the energy capacity of lithium-ion 18650 batteries
and safety features allegedly contained in the batteries. Amazon is
selling batteries with advertised characteristics that do not
exist.

Not only does Amazon unfairly, unlawfully, and deceptively hide the
truth about lithium-ion 18650 batteries, but they also continue to
sell, market, and advertise the batteries on their website despite
knowledge that the batteries are not as advertised, the lawsuit
says.

Mr. Crosby resides in Camarillo, California. Mr. Johnson resides in
Woodland Hills, California. During the Class period, the Plaintiffs
purchased deceptive individual 18650 lithium-ion battery cells and
products containing intentionally deceptive 18650 lithium-ion
battery cells from Amazon.com as the direct seller after May 3,
2021, the date Amazon dropped its arbitration requirement in its
Conditions of Use.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Bethany M. Hill, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          7511 Greenwood Avenue N, Suite 4057
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com
                  nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  bhill@cpmlegal.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Court Tosses Jackson's 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYON JACKSON and MARIO MENA, JR., Plaintiffs v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV, LLC and MIAMI BEER VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-23392-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint.

Background

The Plaintiffs initiated the class action on Aug. 14, 2020, and
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Other
Relief against the Defendants on August 31. They assert claims
based on the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations regarding their
products. Specifically, the Defendants operate the Veza Sur Brewing
Co., which they market as a craft brewery with Latin roots. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresent the authenticity
and ownership of Veza Sur beer to deceive consumers into paying a
price premium for products that consumers believe are made by an
authentic, locally owned craft brewery, rather than by a subsidiary
of the world's largest brewer.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC, arguing that
the FAC failed to state a claim for relief on any count and that
the Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court
held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and granted the motion on
the record. At that hearing, the Court explained that the factual
allegations in the FAC lacked the requisite specificity to survive
dismissal but gave the Plaintiffs the opportunity to cure these
pleading deficiencies by amendment. The Plaintiffs ultimately filed
a Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Other
Relief, attempting to correct the deficiencies noted by the Court,
which is the operative pleading in the action.

The SAC alleges the following facts: AB is one of the largest beer
brewers in America and it owns dozens of different specialized
brands of beer. In the midst of a booming craft beer market in the
United States, AB took efforts to gain some of the market share of
craft beer drinkers. As such, in 2017, the Defendants, along with a
number of other corporate affiliates, opened a Miami-focused craft
brewery, Veza Sur Brewing. However, many craft beer enthusiasts
prefer authentic, locally owned craft beer to beer brewed by large
companies.

Because the Plaintiffs' understanding of a "craft brewer" is
limited to small, local, independently owned breweries with ties to
the local community, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
engaged in a series of false statements, misrepresentations, and
omissions in an effort to deceive consumers into thinking Veza Sur
is an authentic craft brewery with significant ties to Miami and
Latin American roots. Additionally, by referring to its beers as
"craft" beers and by promoting a deep connection to Miami and to
Latin American heritage, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are
attempting to deceive craft beer consumers by giving off the
appearance that Veza Sur is an authentic craft brewery because
Defendants know they can charge a premium for craft beers.

The SAC also alleges that the Defendants further misrepresent Veza
Sur as being "Miami-born with Latin-American roots," and they
include the slogan #HechaenMiami, which translates to "Made in
Miami," on the individual bottles of beer for sale, on the cartons,
and in most, if not all, of their marketing and promotional
materials. Despite this claimed connection to Miami, the SAC
alleges that a portion of Veza Sur beer is brewed and bottled at a
facility in Fort Pierce by Islamorada Brewing Company, LLC, rather
than being brewed exclusively by Veza Sur at the Miami brewery. In
light of this additional brewing facility, the Plaintiffs allege
that certain portions of the labels on Veza Sur's beer and their
packaging are misleading or are entirely false, thus further
contributing to consumer deception.

The SAC further describes each named Plaintiff's experience
visiting Veza Sur's brewery and consuming its beers at home. The
Plaintiffs each visited the Veza Sur brewery in Miami on numerous
occasions, believing it to be a locally-owned, authentic, Miami
craft brewery. They also purchased Veza Sur beer from third-party
retailers to drink at home based on this same mistaken belief. The
Plaintiffs both allege that they were willing to pay a premium for
these allegedly authentic crafted beers, and they did so to their
detriment because of the misrepresentations, omissions, and false
statements Defendants perpetuated to earn greater profits.

In the SAC, the Plaintiffs assert the following seven claims for
relief: Count One - Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Fla. Stat. Section 501.201, et
seq.; Count Two - Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Count Three -
Unjust Enrichment; Count Four - Breach of Express Warranty, Fla.
Stat. Section 672.313; Count Five - Breach of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, et seq.; Count Six -
Negligent Misrepresentation; and Count Seven - Misleading
Advertising, Fla. Stat. Section 817.41.

The Defendants now file their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the
SAC should be dismissed with prejudice because the Plaintiffs
failed to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court at the hearing
on the prior motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiffs still lack
standing to pursue injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion and have filed their Motion to Amend, seeking leave to file
a third amended complaint to allege additional facts (but no new
claims for relief) based on information that was uncovered during
discovery in the case. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs'
request.

Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss the SAC with prejudice because the
SAC fails to state any viable claims for relief, and it fails to
cure the deficiencies noted by the Court at the hearing on the
prior motion to dismiss. They also contend that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim in Count VI. Finally, the Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs do not have standing to move for injunctive relief in
Count I, as they have failed to allege any real threat of future
harm. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss and argue that
they have sufficiently pled each claim in their SAC.

The Plaintiffs have also moved to amend the SAC to allege
additional facts that were uncovered during discovery. The Motion
to Amend does not seek to assert new counts or add any additional
defendants. The Defendants, however, oppose the Motion to Amend
because it is untimely, brought for an improper purpose, unduly
prejudicial, and futile.

A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

As noted, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss argues that the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in their SAC and have
failed to cure the pleading deficiencies that the Court noted at
the hearing on the prior motion. As such, the Defendants contend
that the SAC should be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs
maintain that they have clearly, specifically, and sufficiently set
forth each claim for relief as the Court instructed.

Judge Bloom finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently
plead their FDUTPA claim with the requisite specificity, that the
labeling and marketing employed is not likely to deceive a
reasonable consumer, and that the safe harbor provision applies to
bar liability on the Defendants' TTB-approved labels.

The Judge also concludes that the unjust enrichment claim in Count
Three is subject to dismissal because, as with thePlaintiffs'
claims under FDUTPA, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, and misleading advertising, the Plaintiffs fail
to allege the "misrepresentations and omissions" that form the
basis for their unjust enrichment claim with sufficient
particularity. Without detailed factual allegations regarding the
nature of these misrepresentations, as required under Rule 9(b),
the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege a basis for the
inequitable retention of a benefit conferred.

B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend

In their Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs request leave to file a
Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Other
Relief ("TAC"), to allege additional facts that were revealed
during discovery regarding the relationship between AB and Veza
Sur. These facts, the Plaintiffs contend, will provide further
support for their existing claims and will clarify the extent of
the Defendants' efforts to deceive consumers about the Veza Sur
brand.

Judge Bloom finds that the Plaintiffs have filed to meet the good
cause standard because they cannot show that the deadline to amend
"could not be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension," or that they could not have sought an extension of the
amendment deadline prior to its expiration. As noted, the
Plaintiffs request to amend is prompted by evidence produced during
discovery that informed the Plaintiffs of additional facts that
were relevant to their claims.

The Judge holds that although the Plaintiffs do not include the
date on which they received the relevant discovery, they
nonetheless argue that their requested relief is supported by good
cause because they diligently pursued discovery and the additional
facts in the TAC were not previously known to them. Despite the
Plaintiffs' representation that they diligently pursued discovery
in the case, Magistrate Judge Louis's Discovery Order dated March
11, 2021, tells a slightly different story regarding diligence.

Indeed, in her Discovery Order, Judge Louis refused to entertain
the Plaintiffs' objections to discovery produced by the Defendants
on October 23, 2020. In doing so, Judge Louis noted that the
Plaintiffs failed to attempt to confer about their objections to
the October 23, 2020 discovery for two months. Then, three months
later, the Plaintiffs sought to raise those issues at a hearing
before Judge Louis, but failed to provide any compelling reason for
the delay. As such, Judge Louis concluded that the Plaintiffs'
challenges to Defendants' discovery was untimely and unsupported by
good cause.

Even assuming that the record supported the Plaintiffs' position
that it diligently engaged in discovery in the case, Judge Bloom
still fails to see how the Plaintiffs exercised diligence in
seeking to amend their pleading. Notably, the Plaintiffs have not
provided any explanation as to why their request was not timely
filed, as is their burden to do. In the absence of any compelling
showing that Plaintiffs were diligent in pursuing this amendment,
Rule 16's good cause inquiry ends and precludes allowing the
untimely amendment. As the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
good cause and due diligence in seeking the untimely amendment, the
Judge concludes that the Motion to Amend must be denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Second Amended Complaint, denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Defer Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint.  Counts I, II, III, IV, VII, and IX
of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and
Other Relief are dismissed with prejudice, and Count VI is
dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court will
separately enter Final Judgment. To the extent not otherwise
disposed of, any pending motions are denied as moot and all
deadlines are terminated.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-styled case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Omnibus Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/hwe553cr from Leagle.com.


ANNOVIS BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Annovis Bio, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

ANVS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19052&wire=1

Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE:ANVS)

ANVS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2021 -
July 28, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 18, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19052&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Annovis
Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Annovis's ANVS401 (Posiphen), an
orally administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis
of neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of
neurodegeneration, did not show statistically significant results
across two patient populations as to factors such as orientation,
judgement, and problem solving; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

APPLE INC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit With U.S. App Developers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Littleton at variety.com reports that Apple has reached a
tentative settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 by a
group of U.S. app developers who asserted that Apple engaged in
anticompetitive practices in relation to the App Store and that it
charged developers exorbitant commissions on in-app purchases.

Apple confirmed the settlement terms, which still require a judge's
approval, in a lengthy news release issued Thursday evening. Apple
confirmed that significant changes are coming to the App Store and
its behind-the-scenes systems and procedures. Apple will pay $100
million into a Small Developers Assistance Fund to support
independent developers with more advantageous terms on app
transactions and commissions. It will also expand the number of
price points available to app developers from less than 100 to more
than 500.

Under the settlement, Apple cannot block app developers' efforts to
steer users to third-party payment platforms where Apple does not
get a cut of any sales. The tech giant said it was "clarifying that
developers can use communications, such as email, to share
information about payment methods outside of their iOS app" -- but
Apple will still forbid such messaging within the apps themselves.

In addition, Apple has agreed to limit its ability to favor certain
developers and apps when users search the App Store. Apple's
statement affirmed that "search results will continue to be based
on objective characteristics like downloads, star ratings, text
relevance, and user behavior signals." The current App Store search
protocols will stay in place for at least the next three years.

The settlement with about 67,000 developers in the case known as
Cameron et al v. Apple is separate from the other high-profile
litigation that Apple is embroiled in at present with Epic Games
over the hugely popular "Fortnite" gaming franchise. Both of the
lawsuits are playing out in U.S. District Court for Northern
California and both turn in part on objections to the standard 30%
fee that Apple charges developers for in-app purchases. Developers
call it the "Apple tax."

The tech giant with a $2.43 trillion market cap (as of Thursday)
gave no ground on whether the App Store has been an overall
positive in the economic prospects for software entrepreneurs. The
settlement in the Cameron et al v. Apple class-action suit, first
filed in federal court in Oakland, Calif., in June 2019, touted
enhancements and new features rather than the legalese of the
settlement.

"From the beginning, the App Store has been an economic miracle; it
is the safest and most trusted place for users to get apps, and an
incredible business opportunity for developers to innovate, thrive,
and grow," said Phil Schiller, the Apple executive who oversees the
App Store. "We would like to thank the developers who worked with
us to reach these agreements in support of the goals of the App
Store and to the benefit of all of our users."

But companies who have chafed against Apple's rules say the
settlement is more evidence that the tech behemoth abuses its
market power and needs to be reined in even more on what critics
say are anticompetitive business practices.

"Apple has long claimed that its Apple tax was for 'trust and
safety,' " said Dallas-based Match Group in statement. The company
owns a clutch of dating apps including Tinder and Match.com. "Now
they're changing the rules, proving it was never about trust and
safety -- just their pocketbooks. This is a raw demonstration of
their monopolistic power: making capricious changes designed to
spur good PR for their benefit right as legislation, regulatory
scrutiny and developer complaints are closing in on them. We hope
everyone sees this for what it is -- a sham."

The Coalition for App Fairness, a lobbying group of 60-plus
companies including Spotify, Epic Games and Match Group that wants
Apple and Google's app stores to offer more equitable terms, also
blasted Apple's proposed settlement as a "sham" and "nothing more
than a desperate attempt to avoid the judgment of courts,
regulators, and legislators worldwide."

"This offer does nothing to address the structural, foundational
problems facing all developers, large and small, undermining
innovation and competition in the app ecosystem," CAF executive
director Meghan DiMuzio said in a statement Thursday. "Allowing
developers to communicate with their customers about lower prices
outside of their apps is not a concession and further highlights
Apple's total control over the app marketplace."

Just over half of the class-action group will receive payments of
$250 as part of the settlement, according to court documents.
Another 6% will receive $2,000 and 1% will receive as much as
$30,000. The détente in the Cameron case is a separate issue from
the larger battle that Apple is waging over App Store business
terms with Epic Games over the lucrative "Fortnite" franchise.

"In a validation of the App Store Small Business Program's success,
Apple and the developers agreed to maintain the program in its
current structure for at least the next three years," Apple stated.
"Businesses earning less than $1 million annually will continue to
benefit from the reduced commission, while larger developers pay
the App Store's standard commission on app purchases and in-app
payments."[GN]


ARDELYX INC: Faces Siegel Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SIEGEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ARDELYX, INC., MIKE RAAB, and JUSTIN RENZ, Case No.
3:21-cv-06228 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021) is a federal securities
class action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased Ardelyx securities
between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and who were damaged thereby.

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

In June 2020, the Defendants submitted a New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for
Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with CKD on dialysis. According 1 to Ardelyx,
tenapanor has "a unique mechanism of action and acts locally in the
gut to inhibit the sodium hydrogen exchanger 3, or NHE3," resulting
in the "tightening of the epithelial cell junctions, thereby
significantly reducing paracellular uptake of phosphate, the
primary pathway of phosphate absorption."

If approved, tenapanor "would be the first therapy for phosphate
management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the primary pathway
of uptake[,]" and "could greatly improve patient adherence and
compliance with one single pill dosed twice daily in contrast to
current therapies where typically multiple pills are taken before
every meal." Thus, tenapanor (and its promise) was widely touted by
Defendants and, accordingly, extremely important to the valuation
(and future success) of Ardelyx securities.

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

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

Immediately, analysts cut their price targets and downgraded the
Company's rating. Piper Sandler, for example, rated Ardelyx neutral
(down from a buy-equivalent rating) and wrote, "we struggle to see
a path forward for Tenapanor." Raymond James, another analyst,
reset the Company's price target to $4.00 from $14.00 per share.

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

The Company's share price likewise plummeted, falling $5.69 per
share, or nearly 74% in a single day, to close at $2.01 per share
on July 20, 2021, before falling another 4.2% by market close on
July 21, 2021.

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

The Plaintiff acquired Ardelyx securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

BELDEN INC: Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended July 4, 2021, that the company continues to defend putative
class action suits initiated by Anand Edke and Kia Mackey,
respectively.

On November 24, 2020, the Company announced a data incident
involving unauthorized access and copying of some current and
former employee data, as well as limited company information
regarding some business partners.

In January 2021, Anand Edke filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Case No. 2021 CH 47.

Jurisdiction for the matter has moved to federal court and the case
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

In February 2021, Kia Mackey filed a separate putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:21-CV-00149.

The plaintiffs have each asked for injunctive relief, unspecified
damages, and unspecified legal fees.

Belden said, "It is premature to estimate the potential exposure to
the Company associated with the litigation. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuits."

Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a portfolio of
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. Its
products provide for the transmission of signals for data, sound,
and video applications. The company is based in St. Louis,
Missouri.


BELL BLVD: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
LUNA PERSIO DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELL BLVD PIZZA CORP. d/b/a VILLA
RUSTICA and MARIA RENDA and SALVATORE RENDA, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04667-DG-JRC (E.D.N.Y., August 19,
2021) alleges the Defendants of egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
August 2007 to in or around July 2021 to perform primary duties as
a cleaner, delivery worker, stock supplier, and to perform other
miscellaneous duties.

The Plaintiff claims that despite working approximately more than
40 hours per week throughout her employment with the Defendants,
the Defendants failed to pay her and other similarly situated
employees the legally prescribed minimum wage, overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay, and spread-of-hours pay or an extra hour at the
legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records,
and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action for
herself and other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid
overtime wages, minimum wages, and spread of hours compensation
against the Defendant, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper.

Bell Blvd Pizza Corp. d/b/a Villa Rustica operates a pizzeria
co-owned by Maria Renda and Salvatore Renda. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BEN'S CRAB: Faces Barillas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN ANTONIO BARILLAS and DAVID CARBALLO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEN'S CRAB CORP
D/B/A/ BEN'S CRAB UNIONDALE, BEN'S CRAB VALLEY STREAM CORP. D/B/A
BEN'S CRAB OCEANSIDE, BEN'S CRAB MASSAPEQUA CORP. D/B/A BEN'S CRAB
MASSAPEQUA, NICO SALINDEHO, DAVID SALINDEHO, DONNY SALINDEHO,
ANDRES SALINDEHO, and BENYAMIN JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04737 (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 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 compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated restaurant employees appropriate minimum wages,
spread of hours premium, and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Antonio Barillas started to work as a food runner at Ben's Crab
Oceanside and Ben's Crab Massapequa from approximately June 16,
2019. He began working as a chef on June 1, 2020 until the end of
his employment on until June 1, 2021.

Mr. Carballo started to work as a busboy at Ben's Crab Oceanside
and Ben's Crab Uniondale from approximately June 16, 2019. He began
working as a chef's assistant on May 1, 2020 until the end of his
employment on until June 1, 2021.

Ben's Crab Corp is a company that operates a seafood restaurant
under the name Ben's Crab Uniondale, with its principal place of
business at 1002 Hempstead Turnpike, Uniondale, New York.

Ben's Crab Valley Stream Corp. is a company that operates a seafood
restaurant under the name Ben's Crab Oceanside, with its principal
place of business at 3451 Long Beach Road, Oceanside, New York.

Ben's Crab Massapequa Corp. is a company that operates a seafood
restaurant under the name Ben's Crab Massapequa, with its principal
place of business at 45 Carmans Road, Massapequa, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

BENEFIS HEALTH: Defrauds Vehicle Accident Patients, Blaine Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KODIAK BLAINE, DOUGLAS DARKO, CHRISTOPHER FLOWER, REYNOLDS HERTEL,
KAREN LAPPI, APRIL POSEY, TERRI SEARSDODD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENEFIS
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., BENEFIS HOSPITALS, INC., BENEFIS MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., MAGELLAN
RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC (a/k/a "MEDEQUITY," "MEDEQUITY, INC." AND
"MEDEQUITY CORP."), and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00092-BMM-JTJ (D. Mon., August 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for tortious interference with business
relations, unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
deceit, conversion and misappropriation, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the
Montana Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a common
practice and procedure of secretly coding the payer party as
MedEquity rather than the health insurer, Medicaid, or Medicare
when a patient involved in a motor vehicle accident or other
third-party liability scenario presents for medical services. In
reality, MedEquityis not a payer party at all. The rates reflected
in the MedEquity liens are the chargemaster prices, which far
exceed the negotiated reimbursement rates the Defendants would
receive if the patient's medical bills were submitted to the health
insurer or government provider and result in such patients paying
more for services than they are contractually or legally required
to pay, the suit says.

Benefis Health System, Inc. is a health care provider, with its
principal place of business in Cascade County, Montana.

Benefis Hospitals, Inc. is a health care provider, with its
principal place of business in Cascade County, Montana.

Benefis Medical Group, Inc. is a health care provider, with its
principal place of business in Cascade County, Montana.

Kalispell Regional Medical Center, Inc. is a health care provider,
with its principal place of business in Flathead County, Montana.

Magellan Resource Partners, LLC is a health care provider, with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Dennis P. Conner, Esq.
         Keith D. Marr, Esq.
         Gregory G. Pinski, Esq.
         J.R. Conner, Esq.
         CONNER, MARR & PINSKI, PLLP
         P.O. Box 3028
         Great Falls, MT 59403-3028
         Telephone: (406) 727-3550
         Facsimile: (406) 727-1640
         E-mail: dennis@mttrials.com
                 keith@mttrials.com
                 greg@mttrials.com
                 jr@mttrials.com

                - and –

         Charles S. Lucero, Esq.
         615 Second Avenue North, Suite 200
         Great Falls, MT 59401
         Telephone: (406) 771-1515
         Facsimile: (406) 771-1146
         E-mail: charlie@charlielucero.com

BIMBO BAKERIES: Bartosiake Sues Over "Chocolate Fudge Iced" Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE BARTOSIAKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04495 (N.D. Ill., August 23, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and state consumer fraud acts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
chocolate cake under the Entenmann's brand. The product's
representation to be iced with chocolate fudge is misleading
because it gives consumers the impression the product contains a
greater relative and absolute amount of fudge than it does.
However, the product lacks ingredients essential to fudge, butter
and milk, and substitutes lower quality and lower-priced vegetable
oils and whey. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for
it, the suit says.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is a U.S. subsidiary of the Mexican
multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo,
with a principal place of business in Horsham, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

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

BLUE NILE: Johnson Appeals Dismissal of Wiretapping Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Susan Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled SUSAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE NILE, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08183-LB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

Blue Nile sells jewelry online through its website. It uses
FullStory's software (called "session replay") to record what
visitors are doing on the Blue Nile website, such as their
keystrokes, mouse clicks, and page scrolling, thereby allowing a
full picture of the user's website interactions.

FullStory is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. It provides software to its clients (including Blue Nile)
to capture and analyze data so that the clients can see how
visitors to their websites are using the sites. The clients put
FullStory's code on their websites to capture the data, and then
they can review the data, which is stored in the cloud on
FullStory's servers. The software records visitor data, such as
keystrokes, mouse clicks, and page scrolling. Through a function
called Session Replay, FullStory's clients can see a "playback" of
any visitor's session. If the visitor is still on the site, the
clients can see the session live.

The Plaintiff is a resident of California, and Blue Nile is a
Delaware company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Between
January and May 2020, the Plaintiff visited Blue Nile's website on
a monthly basis to browse its jewelry selection but did not buy
anything. FullStory's Session Replay function "created a video
capturing each of Plaintiff's keystrokes and mouse clicks on the
website . . . [and] also captured the date and time of the visit,
the duration of the visit, Plaintiff's IP address, her location at
the time of the visit, her browser type, and the operating system
on her device."

The captured personally identifiable information (PII) includes in
addition to the information in the last paragraph--the user's
payment card information such as card number, expiration code, and
CVV security code.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint has three claims: (1)
wiretapping, in violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a); (2)
the sale of eavesdropping software, in violation of Cal. Penal Code
Section 635(a); and (3) invasion of privacy under California's
Constitution. The Plaintiff withdrew claim three.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 20, 2021, the
Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend. On August 13, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice because the Plaintiff did
not cure the earlier complaint's deficiencies.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated August 13, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Susan Johnson Mediation Questionnaire was due
August 30, 2021;

   -- Appellant Susan Johnson opening brief is due on October 25,
2021;

   -- Appellees Blue Nile, Inc. and FullStory, Inc. answering brief
is due on November 26, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com  

Defendants-Appellees BLUE NILE, INC. and FULLSTORY, INC. are
represented by:

          Patrick R. Carey, Esq.
          Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
          Matthew Verdin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (415) 591-7093
          E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com
                  mverdin@cov.com  

               - and -

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4715
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

CALYX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Interest on Proceeds From Gas Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Indianola Resources, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Calyx Energy III, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-00235-JFH (E.D. Okla., Aug. 11, 2021) concerns the
Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related
to the payment of oil-and-gas production proceeds to those entitled
to the proceeds.

Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA") requires
holders of proceeds, like Defendant here, to pay interest on
"proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production or some portion of
such proceeds [that] are not paid prior to the end of the
applicable time periods provided" by statute. 52 O.S. section
570.10(D).

The PRSA imposes automatic interest on late payments. Compliance
with the PRSA is not optional, and the statute contains no demand
requirement before an owner is entitled to statutory interest.

Defendant knows it is bound by statute to pay interest on late
payments, but it has consistently ignored these obligations and
blatantly violated Oklahoma law. The Defendant does not
automatically pay interest on all late payments. Instead, it only
pays interest to owners who demand it, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff files this class action against Defendant to obtain
relief for itself and all similarly situated owners who received
late payments for which Defendant did not pay interest as required
by the PRSA.

Indianola Resources owns interests in oil-and-gas property for
which Defendant owed a duty under Oklahoma law to timely remit
proceeds to Plaintiff.

Calyx is in the business of producing oil-and-gas and constituent
products from the oil-and-gas properties in which the Class Members
hold interests and Calyx further remits proceeds to Class
Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

               - and -

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          John Paul Albert, Esq.
          NEEDHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          410 N. Walnut Ave., Suite 110
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 297-0176
          E-mail: brady@tnc.energy
                  jpalbert@tnc.energy

CAPITAL ONE: Fiorarancio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO D. FIORARANCIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-15775 (D.N.J., August 19, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover
damages and other relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has begun placing calls to
his cellular telephone number in or around July 2017 in an attempt
to collect an alleged credit card that has been defaulted due to
financial hardship. Despite the Plaintiff's effort to revoke any
consent previously given and to stop the Defendant's calls on his
cellular phone, the Plaintiff still received numerous calls from
the Defendant, including many pre-recorded voicemail messages. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant used an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" for non-emergency purposes and especially after
he revoked his prior express consent, thereby violating 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).

The complaint further asserts that the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated individuals have been harmed by the Defendant's
unlawful conduct because their privacy has been violated, they were
subject to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance,
and in many cases, they were charged for incoming calls.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. provides banking services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 273-7117
          Fax: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

                - and –

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM, LLC
          1400 S. Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21230
          Tel: (301) 620-1016
          Fax: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

CARLOTZ INC: Faces Erdman Putative Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit entitled, Daniel Erdman v. CarLotz,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05906-RA.

On July 8, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Daniel Erdman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and
certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's business, operations,
financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
stock of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the
period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021.

The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of the
federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, CarLotz, Inc., is a used vehicle
consignment and Retail Remarketing business that provides its
corporate vehicle sourcing partners and retail sellers of used
vehicles with the ability to access the previously unavailable
retail sales channel, while simultaneously providing buyers with
prices that are, on average, below those of traditional
dealerships.


CARLOTZ INC: Faces Turk Putative Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit entitled, Michael Turk v. CarLotz, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06627-RA.

On August 5, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Michael Turk,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and
certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's business, operations,
financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
stock of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the
period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021.

The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of the
federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, CarLotz, Inc., is a used vehicle
consignment and Retail Remarketing business that provides its
corporate vehicle sourcing partners and retail sellers of used
vehicles with the ability to access the previously unavailable
retail sales channel, while simultaneously providing buyers with
prices that are, on average, below those of traditional
dealerships.


CARLOTZ INC: Faces Widuck Putative Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
CarLotz, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit entitled, Michael Widuck v. CarLotz,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06191-RA.

On July 20, 2021, purported CarLotz stockholder Michael Widuck,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that CarLotz and
certain of its executive officers made various false and misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's business, operations,
financial performance and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

The action is stated to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
stock of Acamar Partners Acquisition Corp. and CarLotz during the
period from December 30, 2020 to May 25, 2021.

The action seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of the
federal securities laws, plus interest and costs and expenses.

Based in Richmond, Virginia, CarLotz, Inc., is a used vehicle
consignment and Retail Remarketing business that provides its
corporate vehicle sourcing partners and retail sellers of used
vehicles with the ability to access the previously unavailable
retail sales channel, while simultaneously providing buyers with
prices that are, on average, below those of traditional
dealerships.


CASSAVA SCIENCES: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that it filed a class
action lawsuit charging Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA) and
certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking to represent purchasers of Cassava
Sciences common stock between February 2, 2021 and August 24, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Cassava Sciences class action
lawsuit was commenced on August 27, 2021 in the Western District of
Texas and is captioned Brazeau v. Cassava Sciences, Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Cassava Sciences
class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking
here. You can also contact attorney Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller
by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Cassava Sciences class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than October 26, 2021.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Cassava Sciences' lead therapeutic product
candidate during the Class Period was simufilam, a small molecule
drug designed to treat Alzheimer's disease. On February 2, 2021,
Cassava Sciences announced results from its interim analysis of an
open-label study of simufilam, which purportedly demonstrated that
patients' cognition and behavior scores both improved following six
months of simufilam treatment, with no safety issues. As the market
digested this ostensibly great news, the market price of Cassava
Sciences common stock increased and Cassava Sciences immediately
cashed in on the stock price inflation, issuing and selling more
than four million shares of its common stock at $49 per share on
February 12, 2021 through an underwritten follow-on public stock
offering and reaping more than $200 million in gross proceeds.

The Cassava Sciences class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) the quality and integrity of the
scientific data supporting Cassava Sciences' claims for
simulfilam's efficacy had been overstated; (ii) the scientific data
supporting Cassava Sciences' claims for simulfilam's efficacy were
biased; and (iii) as a result, defendants' positive statements
during the Class Period about Cassava Sciences' business metrics
and financial prospects and the likelihood of U.S. Food Drug
Administration ("FDA") approval were false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 24, 2021, it was disclosed that the FDA had received a
so-called Citizen Petition commencing an administrative action to
"halt two ongoing trials of the drug [s]imufilam . . . pending a
thorough audit by the FDA." As detailed in the Citizen Petition,
"[i]nformation available to the petitioner . . . raises grave
concerns about the quality and integrity of the laboratory-based
studies surrounding this drug candidate and supporting the claims
for its efficacy." After summarizing its findings, the Citizen
Petition went on to conclude that "the extensive evidence set forth
in the enclosed report, which presents grave concerns about the
quality and integrity of the scientific data supporting Cassava
[Sciences'] claims for [simulfilam]'s efficacy, provides compelling
grounds for pausing the ongoing clinical trials until the FDA can
conduct and complete a rigorous audit of Cassava [Sciences']
research." On this news, the price of Cassava Sciences common stock
fell approximately 32%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Cassava
Sciences common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Cassava Sciences class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Cassava
Sciences class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Cassava Sciences class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Cassava Sciences class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]

CB HEALTHCARE: Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
--------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA VASQUEZ-ALVAREZ on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. CB HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00949 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 12, 2021) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA) and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL)
for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid regular and agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

Allegedly, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an
unlawful compensation system that deprived Plaintiff and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all
compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Specifically, Defendant's unlawful compensation system
failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such
as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and
payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.

The Defendant's allegedly deliberate failure to compensate its
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for hours worked at the proper
and legal rate(s) of pay violated federal law as set forth in the
FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL.

Ms. Vasquez-Alvarez, is an adult female resident of the State of
Wisconsin with a post office address of 505 South Van Buren Street,
Green Bay, Wisconsin.

CB Healthcare is an owner, operator, and manager of assisted living
facilities in the State of Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Benitez Petitions for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Raymond Benitez filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Petitioner v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas HealthCare System, d/b/a Atrium Health,
Respondent, Case No. 21-271.

Response is due on September 24, 2021.

Mr. Benitez petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in the case titled RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a Carolinas
HealthCare System, d/b/a Atrium Health, Defendants-Appellee, Case
No. 19-2145. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
order granting Hospital Authority's motion for summary judgment and
dismissing all claims against it.

The question presented is: Can a multibillion-dollar "hospital
authority" that operates in multiple States in a manner
indistinguishable from private hospitals be a "local government"
for purposes of the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984?

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 5, 2021, Mr.
Benitez -- who had been treated at a Hospital Authority inpatient
facility in 2016 -- filed a class action complaint against the
Hospital Authority, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  He alleges the Hospital Authority is the second largest
public health system in the United States. It is also, Benitez
asserts, the largest inpatient healthcare provider in the
Charlotte, North Carolina area, with approximately twelve million
patient encounters every year. Because of this, it receives more
than 50% of all inpatient revenue in the Charlotte area.

According to Benitez, insurers recognize the Hospital Authority's
large market share and -- out of necessity -- contract with the
Hospital Authority so that Charlotte-area residents can easily
receive inpatient services. Thus, in reaching these contractual
agreements, the Hospital Authority's "market power has enabled it
to negotiate high prices (in the form of high reimbursement rates)
for treating insured patients." Additionally, Benitez claims the
Hospital Authority "has imposed steering restrictions in its
contracts with insurers." He alleges these provisions are
anticompetitive because they preclude "insurers from providing
financial incentives to patients to encourage them to consider
utilizing lower-cost but comparable or higher quality alternative
healthcare providers." And without such incentives, patients are
effectively required to go to the Hospital Authority where the
rates are higher.

The district court found that the Hospital Authority is a "local
government" and, therefore, immune from monetary damages.  The
district court then stayed Benitez's claim for injunctive relief
pending a resolution of the Enforcement Action.  After the
Enforcement Action settled, the Hospital Authority filed a renewed
motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Benitez did not oppose.
The district court granted the motion, dismissing all claims
against the Hospital Authority.

The appeal involves the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15
U.S.C. Section 34, et seq. Congress passed the Act "in order to
broaden the scope of antitrust immunity applicable to local
governments" after a surge in the filing of antitrust lawsuits
threatened to "undermine a local government's ability to govern in
the public interest." Although the Act does not preclude injunctive
or declaratory claims, it immunizes "local governments" from
antitrust damages.  Now, the Court considers whether the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority qualifies as a "local
government" under the Act.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Eric F. Citron, Esq.
          Tejinder Singh, Esq.
          Daniel Woofter, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
          7475 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 850
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 362-0636
          E-mail: ec@goldsteinrussell.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sciabacucchi Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI and HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI, MICHAEL
HUSEBY, BALAN NAIR, ERIC ZINTERHOFER, CRAIG JACOBSON, THOMAS
RUTLEDGE, DAVID MERRITT, LANCE CONN, and JOHN MARKLEY, Defendants,
and CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No.
11418-VCG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware denied in part and granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.

Factual Overview

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion. It was fully briefed as
of May 5, 2021. Subsequently, the parties wrote to inform Judge
Glasscock of the publication by the Court of other opinions
relevant to the Motion. At a June 22, 2021 teleconference, the
Judge informed the parties that he needed no further submissions
and considered the matter submitted for decision as of that date.
The Memorandum Opinion is the result.

There are four parties relevant to the Motion: (1) the Plaintiffs,
who are stockholders of (2) the nominal Defendant, Charter
Communications, Inc., which was allegedly controlled by (3)
Defendant John Malone, and (4) now non-party Liberty Broadband
Corp. The Plaintiffs challenge as self-dealing certain transactions
between Charter and Broadband, which were undertaken to facilitate
two acquisitions which are, themselves, not challenged ("TWC
Acquisition" and "Bright House Acquisition"). Necessary to the
self-dealing charge is, of course, the allegation that Malone and
Broadband together controlled Charter, at the very least, in
connection with the Broadband Transactions, if not generally.

Procedural History

The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this action on Aug.
21, 2015. An amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2016. The
Original Complaint alleged, both directly (Count II) and
derivatively (Count IV), that Broadband and Malone "are de facto
controlling stockholders of Charter" and "have violated their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing the Board to agree
to the Broadband Transactions which will unfairly expropriate and
transfer voting and economic power from Charter's public
shareholders to" Broadband and Malone. Broadband and Malone moved
to dismiss on July 22, 2016. The Original Complaint also alleged in
Count I a direct claim that Charter's directors ("Director
Defendants") had breached their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs
filed their answering brief for the Motion to Dismiss on September
2, 2016.

On May 31, 2017, Judge Glasscock issued a Memorandum Opinion
("Sciabacucchi I") holding that, although the cumulative
allegations against Malone and Broadband were probably sufficient
to support an inference of control, the contractual restrictions on
them meant that they functionally could not exercise actual
control. On July 26, 2018, the Judge dismissed, via another
Memorandum Opinion ("Sciabacucchi II"), Counts I, II, and IV of the
first amended complaint, which served also to dismiss now-non-party
Broadband. This left only Count III, a derivative claim that the
Director Defendants, including Malone, had breached their fiduciary
duties in approving the Broadband Transactions. The parties
proceeded to discovery and completed document production on January
31, 2020. Malone's deposition, which the parties argue is relevant
to the Motion, occurred on November 13, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed
the Motion on January 20, 2021.

Analysis

In the Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that discovery has revealed new
information that supports a re-assertion of the allegation that
Broadband and Malone were controllers. That new information, per
the Plaintiffs, should allow them to revive Counts II and IV of the
Original Complaint, both of which allege breaches of fiduciary duty
against Malone and Broadband. Sufficient allegation that Malone and
Broadband are controllers would also compel me to reassess Count I
-- the direct claim against the Director Defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duty -- because the direct nature of that claim rested on
the paradigm set forth in Gentile v. Rossette, which applies only
in case of a controlling stockholder. Finally, the Plaintiffs also
wish to add both a direct and derivative aiding and abetting count
against Broadband -- new claims, but ones arising from the
allegations of the breach of duty and control claims.

The parties, in their briefing, dispute whether the Motion is
governed by Court of Chancery Rule 15(a) or Rule 15(aaa) and, if
the latter, whether the Plaintiffs have shown that an exception to
the law of the case doctrine applies.

A. The Rule 15 Paradigm

When a Motion to Amend seeks to re-assert a claim that has been
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 23.1, the first inquiry must
be whether the original dismissal of that claim was with or without
prejudice. The nature of a dismissal is determined at the time the
Court orders the dismissal and, if it results from the Court
granting a motion to dismiss, is governed by Rule 15(aaa). That
Rule provides that if the Court dismisses a complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) or 23.1, "such dismissal will be with prejudice unless the
Court, for good cause shown, will find that dismissal with
prejudice would not be just under all the circumstances."

Judge Glasscock opines that at the time a claim is dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 23.1, the plaintiff may request that such a
dismissal be without prejudice -- upon a showing, with good cause,
that such a with-prejudice dismissal would be unjust, the Court
will grant the request. Absent such a determination, however,
dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 23.1 are, by default under
Rule 15(aaa), with prejudice; and the plaintiff must overcome the
law of the case presumption in order to replead the dismissed
claim. That standard the Judge applies.

B. The Motion is denied as to the re-assertion of claims previously
dismissed.

The Plaintiffs point to three pieces of new evidence that
ostensibly represent a change in circumstance or show that
Sciabacucchi I and II work an injustice. First, they note that
during Malone's deposition, he "testified that he had 'soft
control' over Charter." Second, the Plaintiffs argue that discovery
has shown that Broadband had an effective veto over both the TWC
Acquisition and the Bright House Acquisition, allowing it to wield
control over the structure of those transactions. And finally, the
Plaintiffs note that Broadband's four director-designees on
Charter's (ten-member) board voted on the challenged Broadband
Transactions.

Judge Glasscock does not find that the combination of these three
new pieces of evidence represents a change in circumstances or
causes an injustice should the Plaintiffs be unable to amend. In
Sciabacucchi I, the Judge found that the contractual restrictions
on Broadband -- including allowing Broadband to designate at most
four of 10 directors, prohibiting it from acquiring more than 35%
of Charter stock, and prohibiting it from soliciting proxies --
caused Broadband to be unable to exercise actual control over
Charter in connection with the Broadband Transactions. The Judge
says, the new evidence that has come to light from discovery has
neither negated nor overcome that finding. Accordingly, he does not
find that a compelling reason to disregard the law of the case
exists. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint is denied as to the reassertion of the previously
dismissed Counts I, II, and IV.

C. The Motion to Amend is granted as to the assertion of the aiding
and abetting claims.

Finally, Judge Glasscock addresses the Plaintiffs' attempt to amend
to add aiding and abetting counts against Broadband. Because these
are new claims that were not within the purview of the motion to
dismiss decided by Sciabacucchi I and II, the Judge holds that the
law of the case doctrine does not -- in fact, cannot, as no prior
dismissal of the claims occurred -- apply. Instead, these claims
fall squarely into Rule 15, which contains two relevant
subsections: Rule 15(a) and Rule 15(aaa).

1. The Motion to Amend is not futile.

Because the aiding and abetting claims stem from the same conduct
that was alleged to show control, Judge Glasscock holds that they
are intertwined with the allegations of the Original Complaint such
that they relate back to the time of filing. Nor does it appear
that the claims are futile; the current complaint alleges that the
Director Defendants breached fiduciary duties by steering benefits
to Malone and Broadband, resulting in damages. Without engaging in
a full motion to dismiss analysis, the aiding and abetting claims
require, additionally, that the complaint allege knowing
participation in that breach by Broadband. The proposed amendment
clears that bar. What is left to determine, then, is whether the
resulting time delay is substantially prejudicial to the
Defendants. If not, the amendment should be allowed.

2. The Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment.

The Defendants can be categorized into three groups: The Director
Defendants, Malone, and Broadband. The Director Defendants do not
allege that they will be prejudiced by the amendment.

As to Defendant Malone, he has been and continues to be a defendant
in the action as a director; he was deposed on November 13, 2020
and has engaged in fact discovery. Accordingly, Judge Glasscock
finds that he will not be prejudiced by the addition of aiding and
abetting claims against Broadband.

As to Broadband however, the question is much closer. Broadband has
not been a party to this action for three years and has
participated in fact discovery only as a subpoenaed non-party. On
the other hand, per the Plaintiffs, "Broadband is represented by
the same lawyers who have represented Malone (its Chairman and
controller)." Further, Broadband is controlled by Malone and is a
significant stockholder of Charter; it was previously on notice
that it was involved in the case, even as a non-party, and it ought
to have been on notice that it could be open to other claims
stemming from the same set of facts.

Accordingly, Judge Glasscock finds that there is a quantum of
prejudice to Broadband, but that it is not substantial. To mitigate
that prejudice, he holds that should Broadband need to take its own
discovery following the amendment, the scheduling order will be
amended to allow it to take discovery.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
is denied in part and granted in part. The parties should submit a
form of order consistent with Judge Glasscocks' Memorandum
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/jddt3ynx from Leagle.com.

Kurt M. Heyman -- kheyman@hegh.law -- Melissa N. Donimirski --
mdonimirski@hegh.law -- and Aaron M. Nelson -- anelson@hegh.law --
of HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware;
Nathan A. Cook of BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Matthew Sciabacucchi.

Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- of BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys
for Plaintiff Hialeah Employees' Retirement System.

Peter J. Walsh, Jr. -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- Brian C.
Ralston -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Tyler J. Leavengood --
tleavengood@potteranderson.com -- and Jaclyn C. Levy --
jlevy@potteranderson.com -- of POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Richard B. Harper and Alyssa
Pronley, of BAKER BOTTS LLP, in New York City; Thomas E. O'Brian,
of BAKER BOTTS LLP, in Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendants John
Malone and Gregory Maffei and non-party Liberty Broadband
Corporation.

David C. McBride -- dmcbride@ycst.com -- Martin S. Lessner --
mlessner@ycst.com -- James M. Yoch, Jr. -- jyoch@ycst.com -- Paul
J. Loughman -- ploughman@ycst.com -- and Kevin P. Rickert --
krickert@ycst.com -- of YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP; OF
COUNSEL: Zachary M. David and Adam M. Gogolak, of WACHTELL, LIBTON,
ROSEN & KATZ, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants Lance
Conn, Michael Huseby, Craig Jacobson, John Markley, David Merritt,
Balan Nair, Thomas Rutledge, and Eric Zinterhofer.


CITY CATERING: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EUSTAQUIO ASCENCIO ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CITY CATERING CAFE INC. (D/B/A CITY
CATERING CAFE), LEON MOORE, and GEORGE JAMISON, Case No.
1:21-cv-06843(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed
as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to cleaning the inside of the restaurant,
mopping the floor, sweeping the floor, washing the dishes, and
preparing the food ("non-tipped duties").

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and spread
of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
In addition, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Valentin
wages on a timely basis, added the suit.

Plaintiff Encarnacion is a former employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a catering deli and cafe,
located at 333 E 23rd St New York, New York formerly located at 466
Lexington Avenue New York, New York under the name "City Catering
Cafe".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COBRA SPECIAL: Refuses to Pay Proper Wages, Marchisio Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LANDON MARCHISIO, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, v. COBRA SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and JOSEPH MARKEAL DANIELS,
individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-02519 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 11, 2021)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
including collective claims for unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum
wages.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants have refused and continue to
refuse to pay him and other similarly situated any wages at all for
the last two weeks of their employment with Defendants.

Mr. Marchisio and similarly situated individuals were employed as
hourly-paid, non-exempt security guards/officers by the Defendants
during the three-year period preceding the filing of this action.
He and those similarly situated typically worked 40 or more hours
per week for the Defendants during all times material to this
action.

CSRT is a licensed security contractor with the state of
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Mask Mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt on August 24, filed a class
action lawsuit against school districts forcing a mask mandate on
school children and teachers. The lawsuit, which is a reverse class
action that was filed earlier this morning, names Columbia Public
Schools, the Board of Education for the School District of Columbia
and their board members, and the Superintendent for Columbia Public
Schools as defendants.

"Forcing school children to mask all day in school flies in the
face of science, especially given children's low risk of severe
illness and death and their low risk of transmission. Additionally,
forcing schoolchildren to mask all day could hinder critical
development by eliminating facial cues and expressions," said
Attorney General Schmitt. "We filed this suit today because we
fundamentally don't believe in forced masking, rather that parents
and families should have the power to make decisions on masks,
based on science and facts. I am committed to fighting back against
this kind of government overreach. Americans are free people, not
subjects."

The lawsuit, which incorporates three counts argues that the
imposition of a mask mandate on schoolchildren is arbitrary and
capricious, that the mask mandate is subject to $ 67.265, and that
the mask mandate is unlawful as to schoolchildren.

To support the claims that the mask mandate is arbitrary and
capricious, the lawsuit argues that children are at an extremely
low risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19, that children
are at a low risk for spreading COVID-19, that masks fail to
provide adequate protection against COVID-19 in children, and that
masks are detrimental to the development of young children.

Citing Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services data, the
lawsuit notes that zero children under the age of 10 have died from
COVID-19. Further, the lawsuit notes that children make up less
than 1 out of every 100,000 people who are hospitalized in
Missouri. Citing a study from the United Kingdom, the lawsuit
states, "Data from the United Kingdom regarding fatality rates from
the delta variant show the case fatality rate from delta is lower
than other variants, and it is near 0.0% for those under fifty
years old."

Citing numerous medical studies, the lawsuit also makes the point
that children have a low risk of transmitting the virus to other
children. A Netherlands study cited by the lawsuit confirms that,
"(1) children play a minor role in the spread of the novel
coronavirus, (2) the virus is mainly spread between adults and from
adult family members to children, and (3) the spread of COVID-19
among children or from children to adults is less common." The
lawsuit, citing another study from the United Kingdom, states, "the
author confirmed that there is very little evidence that the virus
is transmitted in schools."

Specifically relating to the efficacy of masks themselves, the
lawsuit argues, "Mask use by the general population shows, at best,
a marginal impact on the spread of COVID-19. And most studies show
no distinguishable difference between places with mask mandates and
those without them." The lawsuit continues, "Though the European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control advocates for universal
public mask use, it has conceded that the evidence of the benefit
in wearing a surgical mask was 'of low to moderate certainty' and
failed to show statistically significant benefits." Moreover, the
lawsuit says, "One study found that '[r]ates of infection were
consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the
medical mask and control groups. . . . . The poor performance may
have been because the masks were not washed frequently enough or
because they became moist and contaminated.'"

Lastly, the lawsuit argues that masks are a hindrance to
development, especially in young children and those with special
needs. A study cited by the lawsuit, which surveyed 25,930
schoolchildren, noted that 68% "complained about impairments caused
by wearing the masks." The lawsuit, citing the World Health
Organization, states, "The World Health Organization notes that
masking young children raises social and communication concerns.
Specifically, researchers are concerned that masks may 'hinder
verbal and non-verbal communication.'"

The lawsuit also notes that the Columbia school districts continue
to impose a mask mandate despite the Columbia City Council's
rejection of a citywide mask mandate.

The suit incorporates three counts:

Count One: Declaration that the mask mandates are unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious

Count Two: Declaration that the mask mandate is subject to $ 67.265
and expires without Board of Education authorizations

Count Three: Declaration that the mask mandate is unlawful as to
schoolchildren

The full complaint can be found here:
https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2021-08-24—columbia-schools-petition-file-ready.pdf?sfvrsn=b365e116_2

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt recently filed suit against
St. Louis County and City, Kansas City, and Jackson County for
imposing a mask mandate. A St. Louis County judge issued a
preliminary injunction halting the imposition of the mask mandate
in St. Louis County. [GN]

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bassett Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Credit Bureau Services, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Kelly Bassett v.
Credit Management Services Inc., et al., Case No.
8:16-cv-00449-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska - Omaha.

The Plaintiff brought this class action under both the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.


The Defendants now seek a review of the Memorandum and Order dated
August 13, 2021 wherein the Court held that "it does not accept the
verdict of the jury in favor of the Defendants under 15 U.S.C
Section 1692(e) (Claim I). On its own motion, the Court finds
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Claim I.
The Court accepts the verdict of the jury in favor of the
defendants under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(g) (Claim II). The Court
finds in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants under
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1602 (Claim III). The Court also finds
the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties in this action and are
entitled to attorney fees. Further, Judgment is entered in favor of
the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants under the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act and an injunction will issue."

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly Bassett v. Credit Bureau
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-2864, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on August 20, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe
is due on October 12, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe
are represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          Shilee T. Mullin, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          13520 California Street, Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 965-8600
          E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
                  smullin@spencerfane.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of James
M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Owen Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ & HORWITZ
          25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124-0000
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

               - and -

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. REINBRECHT
          2120 S. 72nd Street
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

CVS PHARMACY: Final Approval of Chalian Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Parvin Ghassemian filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled SEVAG CHALIAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation CVS RX SERVICES,
INC., a New York corporation; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 dun 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08979-AB-AGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 30, 2021, Judge
Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive/Service
Awards in the case.  

Mr. Ghassemian seeks a review of this Order.

As previously reported, this matter came before the Court for
hearing on Dec. 4, 2020, for final approval of the Settlement. The
parties have submitted their Global Settlement Agreement evidencing
their proposed settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved
in its Aug. 5, 2020 Order. Overruling objections, Judge Birotte
granted final approval of the Settlement, the Maximum Settlement
Amount of which is equal to $9,750,000.

The appellate case is captioned as Sevag Chalian, et al. v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc, et al., Case No. 21-55904, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:      

   -- Appellant Parvin Ghassemian Mediation Questionnaire is today,
August 31, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by September 27, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on October 25, 2021;

   -- Appellant Parvin Ghassemian opening brief is due on November
30, 2021;

   -- Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc, CVS RX Services, Inc, Sigfredo
Cabrera, Sevag Chalian, Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, Christine McNeely
and Enko Telahun answering brief is due on December 30, 2021; and

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

Objector-Appellant PARVIN GHASSEMIAN is represented by:

          Ashley Cruz, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 226-6901

               - and -

          Rob Hennig, Esq.
          Dat Phan, Esq.
          HENNIG RUIZ & SINGH
          3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1908
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 843-0020

Plaintiffs-Appellees SEVAG CHALIAN, SIGFREDO CABRERA, ENKO TELAHUN,
and CHRISTINE MCNEELY, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, and
all other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          E-mail: mike.falveylaw@gmail.com   

               - and -

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          Alicja Urtnowski, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP
          3258 Fourth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321

               - and -

          Thomas Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5200
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

               - and -

          Armand Raffi Kizirian, Esq.
          KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 221-2800
          E-mail: armand.falveylaw@gmail.com    

               - and -

          Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER MORRISON & FEHR LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com

Defendants-Appellees CVS PHARMACY, INC, a Rhode Island corporation;
CVS RX SERVICES, INC, a New York corporation; and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC, a California limited liability company, are represented
by:

          Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6500
          E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com   

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          Christiana Signs, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
                  signsc@gtlaw.com

DANDY DEL MAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. DANDY DEL MAR LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04572-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021) alleges that Dandy
Del Mar failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, www.dandydelmar.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant allegedly denies full and equal access to its
Website.

Mr. Olsen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"),
New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL") against the Defendant.

Mr. Olsen seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change
its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. As a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person, he is a member of a protected class of
individuals under Title III of the ADA.

The Defendant is an online retailer of clothing and accessories for
men and women. Through the Website, customers can purchase items
including shorts, shirts, rompers, hats, swimsuits and similar
items. Without any brick-and-mortar stores, the Website is
Defendant's exclusive point of sale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com

DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Marhefka Suit Moved From S.D. Cal. to N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL MARHEFKA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00585, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on August 23, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-01963 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to exercise
reasonable care in securing and safeguarding their customers'
personal identifying information.

Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. is an American family-owned
barbecue restaurant chain based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
         Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
         P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
         CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
         110 Laurel Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 238-1811
         Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
         E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
                 jrobinson@cglaw.com
                 camille@cglaw.com

EBIX INC: Ct. Appoints Rahul Saraf as Lead Plaintiff in Teifke Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Teifke v. Ebix, Inc., et.
al., issued an order appointing Rahul Saraf, another purported
purchaser of Ebix, Inc. securities, as lead plaintiff in the
action, and the caption in the action was changed to Saraf v. Ebix,
Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01589-JMF

On February 22, 2021, Christine Marie Teifke, a purported purchaser
of Ebix securities, filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Teifke v. Ebix, Inc., et. al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01589-JMF, on behalf of herself and others who purchased or
acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19,
2021.

The complaint asserts claims against the Company, Robin Raina, and
Steven M. Hamil, for purported violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Ebix made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about an audit of the company's gift card business in India and its
internal controls over the gift and prepaid card revenue
transaction cycle.

The complaint alleges that Ebix's stock price fell as a result of
the revelation that Ebix's independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"),
had resigned, citing concerns with the company's internal controls
and disagreements over other accounting issues. The complaint also
asserts a claim against Robin Raina and Steven M. Hamil for
purported violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising
out of the same facts.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On May 11, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Rahul Saraf,
another purported purchaser of Ebix, Inc. securities, as lead
plaintiff in the action, and the caption in the action was changed
to Saraf v. Ebix, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01589-JMF (the
"Class Action").

Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance,
finance, healthcare, and e-learning industries. The company was
formerly known as Delphi Systems, Inc. and changed its name to
Ebix, Inc. in December 2003. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Dismiss Hunter Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Hunter
v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., is pending.

On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Elanco, Jeffrey Simmons and Todd Young.

On September 3, 2020, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply
chain, inventory, revenue and projections.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30,
2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued
in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2021. The
timing of the Court's decision is uncertain.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
shareholder class action suit entitled, Safron Capital Corporation
v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., remains stayed.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was
filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives, and other individuals.

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
relationships with third party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying
prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which
closed on or about January 27, 2020.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or 5.00% TEUs issued in
connection with the public offering.

This case is currently stayed in deference to Hunter v. Elanco
Animal Health Inc.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Seresto Collar Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to
the use of Seresto(TM), a non-prescription flea and tick collar for
cats and dogs.

Claims seeking actual damages, injunctive relief, and/or
restitution for allegedly deceptive marketing have been made
against Elanco Animal Health Inc. and Bayer HealthCare LLC, along
with other Elanco and Bayer entities, arising out of the use of
Seresto(TM), a non-prescription flea and tick collar for cats and
dogs.

During the six months ended June 30, 2021, putative class action
lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts in the U.S.
alleging that the Seresto collars contain pesticides and other
ingredients that can cause serious injury and death to cats and/or
dogs wearing the product.

The cases, which are now pending in federal court, mention the
existence of incident reports involving humans, but no plaintiff
has claimed personal harm from the product.

One plaintiff filed a petition before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), which may result in all pending
lawsuits being transferred to a single federal judge for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The hearing on the JPML petition took place on July 29, 2021 and a
decision is pending.

Further, a U.S. House of Representative subcommittee chair
requested Elanco to produce certain documents and information
related to the Seresto collar and further made a request to
temporarily recall Seresto collars from the market.

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.


ELEZAJ & SONS: Cordero Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
CANDELARIO CORDERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
other persons similarly situated v. ELEZAJ & SONS REALTY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, MARASH ELEZAJ and KOLA ELEZAJ, Case No.
1:21-cv-06899 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Mr. Cordero was a resident of the County of Bronx, State of New
York.

The Defendants own and manage rental properties in and around New
York City, including within the Bronx, New York.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a
non-exempt superintendent and laborer from in February 2017 until
January 5, 2021. Throughout his employment, Defendants did not
identify Plaintiff as a superintendent of any building on any
signage or postings.

Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was responsible for performing
various manual tasks, including but not limited to painting,
installing and repairing flooring, electrical work, recycling and
garbage removal, sweeping, emergency repairs, and other services as
needed. He regularly worked six to seven days per workweek from
Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., or sometimes
even later, and on Sunday from 8:00 a.m., though often even
earlier, until 5:00 p.m., or sometimes even later.

The Defendants allegedly did not afford Plaintiff an uninterrupted
meal break during most workdays as Plaintiff received an
uninterrupted meal break of approximately thirty minutes during
only one or two workdays per workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY: Faces Amaya Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT
------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY AMAYA, individually  and behalf of other similarly
situated and general public v. ENCOMPASS COMMUNITY SERVICES, a
California corporation; and 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21CV01946 (Cal. Super., Santa Cruz Cty., Aug. 12, 2021) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other members
were required to work more than eight hours per day and/or 40 hours
per week without overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked.

Encompass Community Services owns and operates business enterprises
in retail, upcycled furniture, horticulture, and catering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          County of Santa Clara
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS: Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA BEATTY and MARRIAH JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, L.L.C., and
WILLIAM BOUGHTON, in his personal capacity,Case No. 7:21-cv-06924
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Beginning March 13, 2020, the Defendants ceased paying Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated overtime and instead compensated them
at their regular hourly rates for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week, notwithstanding that Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated continued to work at least 60 hours every other workweek,
the lawsuit alleges.

Defendant Boughton advised Plaintiffs at the time that the
Defendants would only pay overtime when they worked in excess of 80
hours in a two-workweek period. The Defendants continued to
withhold overtime pay and spread of hour pay from Plaintiffs as
described above until their voluntary resignation from employment
on April 23, 2021.

The Plaintiffs are both residents of Greene County, New York. They
were employees of the Defendants.

Environmental Services operates and maintains municipal, private,
and industrial water and wastewater facilities in the Hudson Valley
region of New York State, including the wastewater facilities for
the GlaxoSmithKline production facility located in East Durham, New
York. Mr. Boughton was the Chief Operator for Corporate Defendant's
operation of the GlaxoSmithKline facilities in East Durham, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Russell G. Wheeler, Esq.
           CHARNY & WHEELER P.C.
           9 West Market Street
           Rhinebeck, New York 12572
           Telephone: (845) 876-7500
           E-mail: rwheeler@charnywheeler.com

FIAT CHRYSLER: Hall Appeals Breach of Contract Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Donald Hall filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Donald Hall et al. v. Fiat Chrysler America
US LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00762-CJC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged breach of
contract.

Mr. Hall seeks a review of the Court's Order dated July 20, 2021,
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Donald Hall v. Fiat Chrysler
America US, LLC, Case No. 21-55895, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 20, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Donald Hall Mediation Questionnaire was due August
27, 2021;

   -- Appellant Donald Hall opening brief is due on October 18,
2021;

   -- Appellee Fiat Chrysler America US, LLC answering brief is due
on November 17, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DONALD HALL, individually and on behalf of the
general public and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Michael John Trotter, Esq.
          Steven J. Wysocky, Esq.
          CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN,
           MCKENNA & PEABODY
          P.O. Box 22636
          111 W. Ocean Blvd.
          Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
          Telephone: (562) 432-5855
          E-mail: mjtrotter@cktfmlaw.com
                  sjwysocky@cktfmlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FIAT CHRYSLER AMERICA US, LLC, FKA Chrysler
Group LLC, AKA FCA US, LLC, is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6354

FIBROGEN INC: Bid for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fibrogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action suits related to
its false and misleading statements regarding its Phase 3 clinical
studies data and prospects for Food and Drug Administration
approval, is pending

In April 2021, three putative securities class action complaints
were filed against FibroGen and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuits allege that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding FibroGen's Phase 3 clinical studies data and
prospects for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval
between November 2019 and December 2020.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased FibroGen securities between November 8, 2019 and April 6,
2021.

In May 2021, two additional putative securities class action
complaints were filed against Defendants alleging the same claims.
One of the lawsuits alleges that Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements between October 2017 and December 2020
and seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased FibroGen securities between October 18, 2017 and April 6,
2021.

The other lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements between December 2018 and February 2020 and
seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased
FibroGen securities between December 20, 2018 and April 6, 2021.
All plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on June 11, 2021 and a
hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 19, 2021.

Once a lead plaintiff is appointed by the Court, the Company
expects to receive an amended consolidated complaint.

Fibrogen, Inc. is a leading biopharmaceutical company developing
and commercializing a pipeline of first-in-class therapeutics. The
company is based in San Francisco, California, with subsidiary
offices in Beijing and Shanghai, People's Republic of China.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Overdraft Fees Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
First Merchants Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit related to its checking account
practices associated with its assessment of overdraft fees for
certain debit card transactions.

On June 24, 2021, the Bank was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in a Circuit Court in Delaware County, Indiana
challenging the Bank's checking account practices associated with
its assessment of overdraft fees for certain debit card
transactions.

The relief sought by the plaintiff includes restitution, other
monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The plaintiff also seeks to have the case certified by the Court as
a class action on behalf of all persons who are checking account
holders at the Bank and who were assessed overdraft fees on certain
debit card transactions.

The Corporation believes the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and
intends to defend against them.

First Merchants said, "At this stage of the litigation, it is not
possible for the Corporation's management to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss."

First Merchants Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Muncie, Indiana, and was organized in September
1982. The Corporation has one full-service bank charter, First
Merchants Bank, National Association. The Bank also operates
Lafayette Bank and Trust, Commerce National Bank and First
Merchants Trust Company.


FULTON FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Kress Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Settlement and
Provisional Certification of Settlement Class and Collective with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in the suit
initiated by D. Kress, is pending.

On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D.
Kress filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit on
behalf of herself and other teller supervisors, tellers, and other
similar non-exempt employees in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted summons without a formal
service of process on January 20, 2020.

The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise
account for the amount of time D. Kress and putative collective and
class members spent conducting branch opening security procedures.


The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton Bank did not properly
compensate those employees for their regular and overtime wages.
The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for
a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and
costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back
overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking
compensatory damages and interest.

The Corporation and counsel representing plaintiffs have reached
and executed a formal Settlement Agreement to resolve this lawsuit.


Plaintiffs' Counsel has filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class and Collective Settlement and Provisional Certification of
Settlement Class and Collective with the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

Fulton said, "The Corporation is not able to provide any assurance
that the Court will grant the Motion. If the Court does grant the
Motion, the Settlement Agreement will be administered according to
its terms and thereafter subject to final approval by the Court.
The financial terms of the Settlement Agreement are not expected to
be material to the Corporation. The Corporation established an
accrued liability during the third quarter of 2020 for the costs
expected to be incurred in connection with the Settlement
Agreement."

Fulton Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks offer a full range of general retail and commercial banking
services, including deposits, loans, equipment leasing and
financing, and credit cards. Fulton operates in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. The company is based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.


GENERAC HOLDINGS: Khami Hits Share Drop from Generator Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nahil Khami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Generac Holdings Inc., Aaron Jagdfeld and
York A. Ragen, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06777, (C.D. Cal., August
20, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Generac is a global designer and manufacturer of a wide range of
energy technology solutions, which provides power generation
equipment and other power products serving the residential, light
commercial and industrial markets. Generac's shares trade on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "GNRC."  Aaron
Jagdfeld and York A. Ragen are members of Generac's board of
directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Health
Canada, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) announced the Generac portable generator recall,
revealing that the Generac had received reports of seven finger
amputations and one finger crushing. On this news, Generac's stock
price fell $31.04 per share, or 7%, from its July 28, 2021 closing
price over the next three trading days to close at $400.00 per
share on August 2, 2021, damaging investors.

Khami purchased Generac's securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosure, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Cars Have Shifter Defect, Bertagnolli Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BERTAGNOLLI, GREGORY FLADEBOE, and JUANITA CRAWFORD, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11910-RHC-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 17,
2021) alleges that the Class Vehicles manufactured by the Defendant
contain a defect in which the vehicles fail to detect that the
driver has placed the car in "Park" and thus prevents the vehicle
driver from shutting off and locking the vehicle.

Allegedly, the Class Vehicles display a "Shift to Park" error
message on the instrument cluster even though the gear shift is
already in "Park" (the "Shifter Defect").

GM designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted,
and serviced hundreds of thousands of 2016 through 2019 Chevrolet
Malibu, 2016 through 2019 Chevrolet Volt, 2018 through 2019
Chevrolet Traverse, and 2019 Chevrolet Blazer vehicles (the Class
Vehicles) from approximately mid-2015 to the present.

As a result of the alleged Shifter Defect, the Plaintiffs and
members of the classes are unable to shut off their vehicles and,
to avoid battery discharge, are forced to resort to try to trick
their vehicles to detect that the shift lever is in fact in
"Park."

According to the complaint, GM had knowledge of the defect, issuing
the first in a series of service bulletins on January 9, 2017
alerting its Chevrolet dealerships of the Shifter Defect.

Yet despite these notices, GM, through its Chevrolet dealerships,
refuses to acknowledge the Shifter Defect. When customers press the
issue, GM, through its Chevrolet dealerships, refuses to honor its
contractual promises to fix the defect, forcing owners and lessees
of the Class Vehicles to pay for the repairs at their own expense
or forgo servicing the issue, added the suit.

GM's conduct is a breach of contract, in breach of the express and
implied warranties, and in breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

Had Plaintiffs and other proposed Class Members known that the
defect existed at the time of purchase or lease, they would not
have bought or leased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid
substantially less for them, the suit further asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
                  nfink@finkbressack.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 100
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

GOOGLE LLC: Sandofsky Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Sandofsky filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW SANDOFSKY, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10052-FDS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28, 2021, Judge F.
Dennis Saylor, IV granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The case is a putative class action brought under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681. Plaintiff Sandofsky
has brought suit against the Defendant, alleging that Google failed
to ensure that the "consumer reports" it generates are accurate and
that it failed to remove information on its platform that may be
harmful to the public.  Sandofsky, who is an attorney, is
proceeding pro se. He brings the action on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals -- presumably, anyone as to whom
Google has produced search results, and thus a "consumer report."

The complaint alleges that Google generates "consumer reports" in
violation of the FCRA. Specifically, it alleges that Google
provides a search engine that indexes internet content into a
searchable database "which, upon a user's request, is produced in
the form of a list of hyperlinks, accompanied by concise
descriptions of the content contained within each, and ordered
according to their importance to the individual user." It further
alleges that employers, landlords, and others use the Google search
engine "to find data on individual consumers for the purpose of
evaluating whether to transact business with them, employ them, or
associate with them generally." In addition, it contends that
Google has a policy that "it will not remove content from its
search results unless the author of such content has removed it
from their website or it creates significant risks of identity
theft, financial fraud, or other specific harms."

According to the complaint, Google presently produces search
results associated with Sandofsky's name upon request, without
permission, and for a profit. In particular, it contends that a
link to "mylife.com" appears as a search result on Google, which is
a website that allegedly contains records of a 2007 arrest related
to Sandofsky.

Mr. Sandofsky filed the initial complaint in the case on Jan. 11,
2021. The complaint was then amended on Jan. 26, 2021. It alleges a
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681, and a state-law product-liability claim based on an
alleged design defect.

On April 30, 2021, Google moved to dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Saylor dismissing the case for failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandofsky v. Google LLC, Case
No. 21-1628, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on Aug. 23, 2021.

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW SANDOFSKY, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee GOOGLE LLC is represented by:

          Christopher S. Finnerty, Esq.
          Emily E. Gianetta, Esq.
          Jennifer Janeira Nagle, Esq.
          Morgan T. Nickerson, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1 Lincoln St
          Boston, MA 02111-2950
          Telephone: (617) 261-3123
          E-mail: chris.finnerty@klgates.com
                  emily.gianetta@klgates.com
                  jennifer.nagle@klgates.com
                  morgan.nickerson@klgates.com

GOOGLE LLC: SkinnySchool Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SKINNYSCHOOL LLC d/b/a MARIA MARQUES FITNESS and
MINT ROSE DAY SPA LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-06011, 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 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-07045-PKC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful agreement
with Facebook, Inc., which allowed Google to manipulate advertising
auctions on the advertising exchange.

SkinnySchool LLC, doing business as Maria Marques Fitness, is a
company that offers fitness classes and coaching, with its
principal place of business in North Billerica, Massachusetts.

Mint Rose Day Spa LLC is a massage spa business in Billerica,
Massachusetts.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
         Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         595 Market St., Suite 1350
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-2230
         Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
         E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                 pmarkert@cerallp.com

                  - and –

         Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
         Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
         Sona R. Shah, Esq.
         ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
         41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Telephone: (212) 223-3900
         Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
         E-mail: ftisquith@zsz.com
                 rschachter@zsz.com
                 sshah@zsz.com

                  - and –

         Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq.
         ISQUITH LAW
         220 East 80th Street
         New York, NY 10075
         Telephone: (607) 277-6513
         E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com

                  - and –

         Heidi Silton, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
         Telephone: (612) 596-4092
         E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

                  - and –

         Richard Vita, Esq.
         VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         100 State Street, Suite 900
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 426-6566
         E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com

GOSSAMER BIO: Trial in Kuhne Class Suit Set for Dec. 19, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gossamer Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Scott
Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
vs. Gossamer Bio, Inc., et. al., entered a scheduling order in the
action, setting the case for a trial commencing on December 19,
2022.

On April 3, 2020, Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB).

The first amended complaint was filed on August 31, 2020, and the
second amended complaint was filed on November 20, 2020.

The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of all investors
who purchased the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to
the Company's February 8, 2019 IPO.

The second amended complaint alleges that the Company, certain of
its executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its
IPO made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.

The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 19, 2021. On April 19, 2021, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in substantial part without leave to
amend, and denied the motion to dismiss as to single claim.

On July 21, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order in the
action, setting the case for a trial commencing on December 19,
2022.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Gossamer said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."

Gossamer Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on discovering, acquiring, and developing
therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and
oncology. Gossamer Bio serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in San Diego, California.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Deposition in James Lee Suit Partly Limited
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES LEE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Montana Corp., JAMES
B. LEE, and TRACY D. LEE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. CV 20-68-M-DWM (D. Mont.), Judge Donald W. Molloy of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division,
issued an Opinion and Order:

   (1) granting in part and denying in part GEICO's motion to
       limit the scope of the Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6)
       deposition notices;

   (2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       motion to prohibit GEICO from claiming the Plaintiffs'
       counsel Evan Danno is a necessary witness and from taking
       his deposition

   (3) denying the Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery
       responses regarding the GEICO entities' subrogation
       practices; and

   (4) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       motion for leave to file certain documents in support of
       their pending motion for class certification in the public
       record.

Plaintiffs James Lee Construction, Inc., and husband and wife James
and Tracy Lee represent a putative class challenging the
subrogation practices of Defendants GEICO and related GEICO
entities. There are seven motions pending.

Analysis

The Opinion and Order addresses four of the pending motions,
specifically: (1) GEICO seeks to limit the scope of the Plaintiffs'
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices; (2) the Plaintiffs seek to
prohibit GEICO from claiming the Plaintiffs' counsel Evan Danno is
a necessary witness and from taking his deposition; (3) the
Plaintiffs seek to compel discovery responses regarding the GEICO
entities' subrogation practices; and (4) the Plaintiffs seek leave
to file certain documents in support of their pending motion for
class certification in the public record.

I. Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices

GEICO first seeks to either forbid or limit the scope of the
Plaintiffs' Notices of 30(b)(6) Depositions under Rule 26(c)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues that despite
attempts to collectively agree on the relevant topics, the Notices,
as written, are unduly burdensome, overbroad, vague and confusing,
and amount to an impermissible memory test on more than fifty-five
(55) topics per Defendant, including subtopics." In response, the
Plaintiffs argue that GEICO can object to certain questions during
the deposition itself and points out that GEICO waited until 33
days after it received the Notices -- and nine days before the
scheduled depositions -- to provide the "blanket" objections it now
raises.

The Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) notices contain 24 separate topics with
numerous subtopics.

As to Topics 1-16, GEICO argues that the Plaintiffs improperly
demand that the 30(b)(6) designees be prepared to specifically
identify the "identity and location" of all written materials
relevant to GEICO's Property Recovery Unit ("PRU") and its
subrogation practices and procedures as well as "all facts"
supporting GEICO's claims and defenses.  In response, the
Plaintiffs argue that they seek only the identity and location of
directives and instructions GEICO "contends it actually applies to
comply with Montana's made whole rule."

In Topics 17 through 19, the Plaintiffs seek information on the
corporate relationships and allocation of subrogation recoveries
between the GEICO entities. GEICO challenges these topic areas on
factual grounds, asserting that there is no such information
because the GEICO entities do not share recoveries. With respect to
Topic 20, GEICO objects to the language seeking information related
to the "full corporate and business entity structure" of GEICO
affiliates as vague and confusing.

GEICO objects to Topics 21 and 22 to the extent they demand a
witness identify the specific "mechanism" and "terms" related to
how expenses and recoveries are allocated between the GEICO
entities. Topics 23 and 24 regard GEICO's finances, including its
general information as well as the amount of subrogation recoveries
obtained during the class period. According to GEICO, these
requests are overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of
the case.

In the final page of the Plaintiffs' response, they "request that
the Court rules that, until the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions have been
completed, the Defendant corporations are estopped from presenting,
by way of witness affidavits, or any factual contention that is
within the topics of the deposition notices.

Ultimately, GEICO's motion is partially well-taken. Judge Molloy
holds that because GEICO's objections to Topics 1-16 and part of 24
are sustained, limitations will be placed on the scope of the
Plaintiffs' discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(D). Discovery on
Topics 1-16 is limited to procedures and policies actually applied
in GEICO's subrogation of claims in Montana and GEICO is permitted
to supplement discovery on those topic areas consistent with Rule
26. Discovery on Topic 24 is narrowed to remove the Plaintiffs'
vague "catch-all" request for additional financial information. The
Plaintiffs' request to prohibit witness affidavits is denied at
this juncture. The parties will each bear their own fees and
costs.

II. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order re Danno

In the second motion at issue, the Plaintiffs seek a protective
order prohibiting GEICO from (1) claiming that the Plaintiffs'
counsel Evan F. Danno is a necessary witness in the case and (2)
taking Danno's deposition.  GEICO insists Danno is a necessary fact
witness based on his conduct and knowledge of the Plaintiffs'
claims.

While GEICO has the better argument, Judge Molloy holds that the
Plaintiffs have not waived attorney-client privilege or work
product protections. He concludes that because GEICO has met its
burden of showing with specificity that Danno is likely to be a
necessary witness at trial and no exception under Rule 3.7(a)
applies, Danno is disqualified from acting as an advocate at trial.
Accordingly, Danno is prohibited from making opening or closing
statements, examining witnesses, and taking depositions. However,
Danno may still participate as counsel or co-counsel in other ways
that are consistent with the applicable rules and case law,
including all pretrial activities beside depositions." GEICO is
permitted to take Danno's deposition, recognizing that the
protections of work-product and attorney-client privilege have not
been waived. Finally, each party will bear their own fees and costs
on the present motion.

III. Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel Discovery

The Plaintiffs have filed a second motion to compel discovery. They
originally sought an order compelling GEICO to fully respond to
Requests for Production Nos. 14, 23, 24, 25, 48, 49, 50, and 51 and
Interrogatory No. 3. However, the parties subsequently resolved a
number of their disputes, leaving only three issues: (1) whether
GEICO's supplemented objections are untimely; (2) whether GEICO
should be compelled to provide the name and contact information for
other subrogation files pursuant to Request Nos. 48, 49, 50, and
51; and (3) whether GEICO should be compelled to identify GEICO
employees who are the most knowledgeable about how the documents
produced by GEICO are kept in the ordinary course of business as
requested in Interrogatory No. 3.

Judge Molloy finds that GEICO prevails on all three. First, GEICO
showed proper diligence in amending its responses after that time
to reflect the reality that the GEICO affiliate defendants were to
remain in the case. Second, GEICO is not required to disclose
specific identification information until after a class is
certified so long as it discloses the information identified.
Third, it is also not appropriate for Plaintiffs to conduct
discovery on discovery. Based on the foregoing, GEICO is not
compelled to provide any information beyond what the parties have
agreed to. Nevertheless, each party will bear their own costs and
fees because GEICO agreed to turn over additional materials as part
of the motion to compel process.

IV. Plaintiffs' Motion to File Documents in the Public Record

Finally, in seeking class certification, the Plaintiffs rely on an
affidavit prepared by their counsel, Allan McGarvey. Attached to
that affidavit, and at issue, are 14 exhibits, comprising 400
pages. The Plaintiffs seek to file these attachments in the public
record, over GEICO's objection.

On its face, Judge Molloy finds that the defugalty appears to be
over whether certain documents should be filed under seal; however,
closer examination of the documents and the Plaintiffs' limited
reliance on them reveals that the better question is whether
several of the exhibits should have been filed at all. Ultimately,
he says, the Plaintiffs must better curate their exhibits, which
limit the present inquiry to a narrower set of material.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Molloy granted in part and denied in
part GEICO's motion for a protective order. Topics 1-16 are limited
to procedures and policies actually applied in GEICO's subrogation
of claims in Montana and GEICO is allowed to supplement discovery
on those topic areas consistent with Rule 26. Topic 24 is narrowed
to remove the Plaintiffs' vague "catch-all" request for additional
financial information. Each party will bear their own fees and
costs.

The Judge also granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for a protective order. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied
insofar as Danno is a necessary witness -- and therefore
disqualified from conducting depositions, making opening and
closing arguments, and examining witnesses at trial -- and GEICO is
permitted to take his deposition. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted
insofar as they have not waived attorney-client or work product
protections. Each party will bear their own fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs' second motion to compel discovery is denied. Each
party should bear their own costs and fees.

The Plaintiffs' motion to file documents in the public record is
granted in part and denied in part as follows:

      (a) the Plaintiffs must curate Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7,
filing only those pages specifically cited in the public record by
September 1, 2021;

      (b) Exhibits 4, 5, and 10 are stricken;

      (c) Exhibit 8 will be refiled under seal by September 1,
2021; and

      (d) the Plaintiffs must provide the public source of Exhibits
12 and 13 by September 1, 2021.

Argument on the motions addressed will no longer be heard at the
Sept. 7, 2021 hearing. However, the parties should be prepared to
address the following: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification; GEICO's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and
GEICO's Motion to Compel Compliance with Appraisal Process.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/prh6upea from Leagle.com.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Townsley Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL TOWNSLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a
GEICO, Case No. 1:21-cv-00760  (D.N.M., Aug. 12, 2021), seeks to
recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and applicable provisions of New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA).

The Plaintiff seeks full compensation on behalf of herself and
putative Collective and Class Members for all unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime. The Plaintiff contend that she and
putative Class Members are entitled to recover back wages for all
hours worked, including work performed off-the-clock, and overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly employee who worked
for GEICO as an Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjuster in New Mexico. In
this role, the Plaintiff investigated insurance claims to ascertain
the extent of any liability on behalf of GEICO, who furnishes car
insurance.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent other current and former
non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who work or worked as
Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters, including similar roles with
different titles, in New Mexico.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid
Adjuster in Albuquerque, New Mexico from July 2016 to August 2018.
The Plaintiff's duties as an Adjuster included inspecting vehicles
for collision and comprehensive damages; customer service via the
phone or in-person engagement; submitting claims on behalf of
individuals for vehicle repairs; submitting online forms in real
time; and issuing checks on behalf of GEICO for insurance payouts.

The Defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway,
Inc., and its headquarters are located at 5260 Western Avenue,
Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20815. Defendant does business throughout
the United States, including in New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Brett D. Watson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  bwatson@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Paige T. Bennett, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
          6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
          E-mail: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Kaur Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Kaur, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Government Employees Insurance
Company Inc. (GEICO), Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00522 (E.D. Va.,
August 12, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act Virginia Code.

GEICO is in the business of providing vehicle insurance, property
insurance and business insurance. Kaur is a former non-exempt,
Telephone Claims Adjuster for GEICO in Fredericksburg, Virginia. He
claims to have performed off-the-clock work for which he was not
adequately compensated. He claims to be regularly required by GEICO
management to work additional hours beyond this scheduled time
while off-the-clock and without receiving compensation including
working through meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301) 587-9373
      Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


GREATER NEVADA: Skogmo Files Suit in D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greater Nevada Credit
Union, et al. The case is styled as Linda Schmidt Skogmo,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Greater Nevada Credit Union, Does 1-5, Inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00384 (D. Nev., Aug. 26, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Greater Nevada Credit Union (GNCU) -- https://www.gncu.org/ -- is a
not-for-profit, full service financial institution headquartered in
Carson City that has been helping Nevadans with their financial
needs since 1949.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory G. Gordon, Esq.
          ER INJURY ATTORNEYS
          4795 S. Durango Drive
          Las Vegas, NV 89147
          Phone: (702) 877-1500
          Fax: (702) 307-5762
          Email: greg@erinjuryattorneys.com


GREEN ROSE: Faces Vega Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREEN ROSE GREEN LEAF CARE, INC. d/b/a THE JOINT, Case
No. 8:21-cv-01331 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a cannabis dispensary. To promote its services,
Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the 10 process.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, 13 and disruption of the daily
life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

According to the complaint, beginning on November 5, 2020, the
Defendant sent the following telemarketing text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7151. The
Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. The
Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cannabis products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E No. 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a federal securities class action suit initiated by Robert
F. Woodley.

In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
against the Company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and such other and further relief that may be deemed just
and proper.

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

Gulfport Energy Corporation is an independent oil natural gas
exploration and production company. The company focuses on the
exploration, exploitation, acquisition and production of natural
gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil in the United States.


HAMMERHEAD TERMITE: Garzon FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LISANDRO GARZON and JOSE E. SAGASTUME, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAMMERHEAD
TERMITE SERVICES INC. d/b/a ARROW TERMITE, MARK WEINBERG, and
REINALDO CARDENAS, Case No. 2021-017475-CA-01, was removed from the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on August 23, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-23041 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Hammerhead Termite Services Inc., doing business as Arrow Termite,
is a pest control service provider in Big Pine Key, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         J. Scott Hudson, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN, KISER & SUTCLIFFE, P.A.
         315 E. Robinson St., Suite 600
         P.O. Box 3000
         Orlando, FL 32802
         Telephone: (407) 425-7010
         Facsimile: (407) 425-2747
         E-mail: shudson@zkslawfirm.com

HANCOCK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay OT Wages for Inspectors, Dover Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY DOVER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, v. HANCOCK CLAIMS CONSULTANTS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-03332-MHC (N.D. Ga., Aug. 16, 2021) is a collective action
on behalf of all current or former property and roof insurance
claim inspectors ("Inspectors") employed by Hancock who provided
insurance inspection services to Defendant's corporate customers,
or materially similar services, and worked in excess of 40 hours
per week at any time beginning three years prior to the filing of
this Collective Action Complaint to present.  

In violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and as a
regular and routine practice, the Defendant allegedly misclassified
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as independent
contractors, and willfully failed to pay them overtime wages
mandated by the FLSA for time worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and other current and
former Inspectors, that Defendant applied policies and practices in
which Defendant: (a) misclassified Inspectors as independent
contractors; (b) encouraged and/or knowingly permitted them to work
more than 40 hours per week; and (c) intentionally failed to pay
them overtime at one-and-one-half their regular rate for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Hancock Claims Consultants is a pioneer in professional property
inspection claims services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 780 4880
          Facsimile: (478) 575 2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
                  mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Cullen Hamelin, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          1720 West End Ave, Suite 402
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 850-0632
          E-mail: street@eclaw.com
                  chamelin@eclaw.com

HAWAI'I: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial in Chatman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MAX N. OTANI filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO ALVARADO, ZACHARY
GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAX N. OTANI, Director
of the State of Hawai'i Department of Public Safety, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu.

The putative class action concerns the alleged conditions in
Hawaii's prisons and jails that have contributed to multiple
COVID-19 outbreaks. The Plaintiffs contend that the Department of
Public Safety ("DPS"), headed by Defendant Otani, has mishandled
the pandemic and failed to implement its Pandemic Response Plan in
violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Plaintiffs are currently incarcerated or detained at DPS
correctional facilities in Hawai'i. They allege that the Defendant
has mishandled and failed to manage outbreaks at its facilities
notwithstanding its Response Plan, which has been in place since
March 2020.

In particular, the Plaintiffs identify the following deficiencies:
(1) housing up to 60 residents/detainees in a single room; (2)
failure to provide adequate water; (3) failure to provide sanitary
living conditions or proper hygiene; (4) failure to separate
COVID-positive inmates; (5) failure to properly quarantine new
intakes; (6) failure to communicate with DPS staff and inmates
regarding proper COVID-19 protocols; (7) failure to protect elderly
and medically vulnerable inmates; (8) failure to allow adequate
social distancing; (9) failure to provide personal protective
equipment or enforce proper mask wearing; and (10) failure to
consistently or adequately evaluate, monitor, and treat inmates
with COVID-19 symptoms.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 16, 2021, the
Defendant asked the Court to enter an order clarifying and/or
modifying this Court's Order (1) Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Provisional Class Certification and (2) Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order, entered on July 13, 2021.

The Defendant requested that the Court modify the Order as
follows:

   1. Defendant shall incorporate Addendum 1 into the Department
      of Public Safety's (DPS) Pandemic Response Plan (PRP) (a
      copy of which is attached hereto as Otani Decl. Ex. A),
      and shall implement the policy outlined therein. As
      outlined in Addendum 1, Defendant shall require all
      corrections officers, all correctional staff who have
      direct contact with inmates, and all DPS law enforcement
      personnel ("covered employees") to certify
      to the DPS Director or his designee by August 2, 2021,
      whether each covered employee has been fully vaccinated,
      partially vaccinated, or not vaccinated for COVID-19.
      Additionally, Defendant shall establish and implement a
      policy requiring covered employees to be fully vaccinated
      for COVID-19. All covered employees must be fully
      vaccinated for COVID-19 no later than October 11, 2021.
      Covered employees may, at DPS's sole discretion, be
      required to provide documentation that verifies that they
      have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Beginning on
      August 2, 2021, covered employees who are not yet fully
      vaccinated for COVID-19 will be subject to testing for
      COVID-19 at least once per week. Exemption from
      vaccination may be granted (1) due to an underlying
      medical condition or disability that contraindicates
      administration of COVID-19 vaccination, (2) due to
      pregnancy or a pregnancy-related medical condition, or (3)
      due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or
      observance. Covered employees seeking an exemption from
      the requirements outlined in Addendum 1 must request an
      accommodation from the DPS Director or his designee.
      Accommodations will be granted on a case-by-case basis
      and/or as required by law. DPS will engage in a process to
      determine if a reasonable accommodation can be provided
      so long as it does not create an undue hardship for DPS
      and does not pose a direct threat to the health or safety
      of others or the employee.

   2. Defendant requests that the Court clarify certain
      statements in its Order with respect to vaccinations, as
      outlined in the attached memorandum and for the reasons
      set forth therein.

   3. With respect to the Pandemic Response Plan, Defendant
      requests that the Court modify its Order to clarify that
      those sections of the PRP that were not specifically
      cross-referenced in the Court's Order do not fall within
      the scope of the Court's preliminary injunction. This will
      enable Defendant and DPS staff to focus their resources on
      the issues most relevant to the overall relief requested
      by Plaintiffs and ordered by the Court.

   4. With respect to inmate grievances, Defendant and DPS
      employees may continue to enforce generally-applicable
      rules and policies such as rules regarding untimely or
      frivolous grievances.

Mr. Otani now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated July 13,
2021, granting Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class
certification and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order;
Court's Order dated August 12, 2021, denying his motion to clarify
and/or modify preliminary injunction; and Court's Order dated
August 18, 2021, denying his second motion to modify preliminary
injunction.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Chatman, et al. v. Max
Otani, Case No. 21-16364, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 19, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant MAX N. OTANI, Director of the State of Hawaii
Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity, is
represented by:

          Clare Connors, Esq.
          Skyler G. Cruz, Esq.
          Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry, Esq.
          Caron M. Inagaki, Esq.
          Nicholas Matthew McLean, Esq.
          Kendall Moser, Esq.      
          AGHI - OFFICE OF THE HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL
          425 Queen Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 568-1180
          E-mail: caron.m.inagaki@hawaii.gov
                  skyler.g.cruz@hawaii.gov
                  caron.m.inagaki@hawaii.gov
                  kendall.j.moser@hawaii.gov  

Plaintiffs-Appellees ANTHONY K. CHATMAN, FRANCISCO ALVARADO,
ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Eric A. Seitz, Esq.
          Gina Szeto-Wong, Esq.
          Kevin A. Yolken, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ
          820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 533-7434
          E-mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com
                  szetogina@gmail.com
                  kevinyolken@gmail.com

HAWAI'I: Appeals Provisional Class Cert. Ruling in Chatman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MAX N. OTANI, Director of the State of Hawaii Department
of Public Safety, in his official capacity, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY CHATMAN,
FRANCISCO ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH
DEGUAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MAX N. OTANI, Director of the State of Hawai'i
Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii, Honolulu.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28, 2021, Judge
Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
(i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class
Certification; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order.

The putative class action concerns the alleged conditions in
Hawaii's prisons and jails that have contributed to multiple
COVID-19 outbreaks. The Plaintiffs contend that the Department of
Public Safety ("DPS"), headed by Defendant Otani, has mishandled
the pandemic and failed to implement its Pandemic Response Plan in
violation of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Plaintiffs are currently incarcerated or detained at DPS
correctional facilities in Hawai'i. They allege that the Defendant
has mishandled and failed to manage outbreaks at its facilities
notwithstanding its Response Plan, which has been in place since
March 2020.

In particular, the Plaintiffs identify the following deficiencies:
(1) housing up to 60 residents/detainees in a single room; (2)
failure to provide adequate water; (3) failure to provide sanitary
living conditions or proper hygiene; (4) failure to separate
COVID-positive inmates; (5) failure to properly quarantine new
intakes; (6) failure to communicate with DPS staff and inmates
regarding proper COVID-19 protocols; (7) failure to protect elderly
and medically vulnerable inmates; (8) failure to allow adequate
social distancing; (9) failure to provide personal protective
equipment or enforce proper mask wearing; and (10) failure to
consistently or adequately evaluate, monitor, and treat inmates
with COVID-19 symptoms.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Provisional Class Certification
order entered by Judge Otake.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Chatman, et al. v. Max
Otani, Case No. 21-16324, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 16, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant MAX N. OTANI, Director of the State of Hawaii
Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity, is
represented by:

          Skyler G. Cruz, Esq.
          Caron M. Inagaki, Esq.
          Kendall Moser, Esq.
          AGHI - OFFICE OF THE HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL
          425 Queen Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 568-1180
          E-mail: skyler.g.cruz@hawaii.gov
                  caron.m.inagaki@hawaii.gov
                  kendall.j.moser@hawaii.gov

Plaintiffs-Appellees ANTHONY K. CHATMAN, FRANCISCO ALVARADO,
ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Eric A. Seitz, Esq.
          Gina Szeto-Wong, Esq.
          Kevin A. Yolken, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ
          820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 533-7434
          E-mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com
                  szetogina@gmail.com
                  kevinyolken@gmail.com

HERTZ GLOBAL: Ramirez Purported Shareholder Class Suit Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the purported
shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc., et al., is now closed.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings (as defined in the Company's 2020 Form 10-K) and
certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of
its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

The complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April
27, 2017 and on September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the
plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional
allegations from the administrative order agreed to by the SEC and
the Company in December 2018, which was supplemented by reference
to the Company's subsequently filed litigation against former
executives.

On September 30, 2019, the federal district court of New Jersey
denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the April 27, 2017
judgment and a related motion to allow the filing of a proposed
fifth amended complaint.

On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The parties fully
briefed the appeal and oral argument had been scheduled for June
19, 2020.

As a result of the Company's bankruptcy, the appeal was stayed as
to the Company, but the plaintiffs advocated that the appeal could
proceed against the individual defendants.

On October 13, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for relief against the
individual defendants since the motion was not timely filed and the
appeal as to the Company remained stayed.

In February 2021, the parties participated in a bankruptcy-related
mediation process and arrived at a tentative settlement wherein the
Company would pay a $250,000 cash settlement.

In return, the plaintiffs would voluntarily dismiss all claims in
the underlying action with prejudice and withdraw the plaintiffs'
Proofs of Claim with prejudice.

On March 12, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court approved the tentative
settlement and the terms of the settlement have now been fully
implemented. This matter is now closed.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides airport and off-airport vehicle rental and leasing
services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


HF FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HF Foods Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the amended securities fraud complaint, is pending.

As previously disclosed, an analyst report published in March 2020
suggested certain improprieties in the Company's operations, many
of which later became the subject of allegations in two putative
class actions and two derivative actions that were filed on or
after March 29, 2020 against the Company, the Company's then
current directors, and/or certain of the Company's then current
officers, alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with claims that the Company failed
to disclose in public statements that the Company engaged in
certain related party transactions, that insiders and related
parties were enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds,
and that the Company masked the true number of free-floating
shares.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.

These cases now are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. A motion to dismiss the amended
securities fraud complaint was filed on January 19, 2021, which is
pending.

The derivative actions are stayed pending the outcome of that
motion to dismiss.

HF Foods said, "In response to the analyst report, the Company's
Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee of Independent
Directors to conduct an internal independent investigation with the
assistance of counsel."

HF Foods Group Inc. markets and distributes fresh produces, frozen
and dry food, and non-food products to primarily Asian restaurants
and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific
and Mountain West regions region of the United States. The company
is based in City of Industry, California.


HOLY SEE: Faces Class Suit Over Childhood Clergy Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL M. CURTIS, ROBERT R. LISIECKI, JACQUELINE REGAN, JORDAN
TAYLOR, DESIREE CALLENDER, and MICHAEL GILL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The HOLY SEE, a/k/a
the APOSTOLIC SEE, Case No. 1:21-cv-06830 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021)
is a class action lawsuit against the HOLY SEE for victims of
childhood clergy sexual abuse.

This class action seeks money damages for the negligence of the
HOLY SEE in mandating a policy for its Bishops and Dioceses of
secrecy and concealment in response to allegations and reports of
child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. This mandatory secrecy
policy, imposed on threat of excommunication, bound Bishops and
Dioceses for decades if not centuries, says the suit.

As a result of this alleged policy, child sexual abuse by Catholic
clergy developed and continued as a pervasive and systemic problem
in the Catholic Church, in which perpetrators were protected and
victims were silenced. This mandatory policy adhered to by Bishops'
and Dioceses' in the United States created a foreseeable risk of
clergy sexual abuse.

The Plaintiffs and class members are victims of clergy sexual abuse
who are eligible to bring claims under the New York Child Victims
Act, C.P.L.R. section 214-g. The claims asserted in this complaint
are for money damages against the HOLY SEE.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq.
          Jeff Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN LAW
          434 W. 33 rd St., Penthouse
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 390-0100
          E-mail: jherman@hermanlaw.com
                  smermelstein@hermanlaw.com

IDEAL IMAGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, v. IDEAL IMAGE GROUP INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-04622-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021) alleges that Ideal
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

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

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Ideal Image provides to their
non-disabled customers through http//:www.idealimage.com ("the
website"). The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

Idealimage.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by Ideal Image. Yet, idealimage.com contains
thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website.

Because Defendant's website, idealimage.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Ideal Image's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

IMMUNOVANT INC: IMVT-1401 Related Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immunovant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit related to the false
and misleading statements regarding the safety of IMVT-1401.

On February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of those who
acquired the Company's securities from October 2, 2019 and February
1, 2021.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of IMVT-1401 and seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

On April 20, 2021, three movants filed motions for appointment as
lead plaintiff, one of which was subsequently withdrawn on April
23, 2021.

No hearing date has been set for the lead plaintiff motions.

Following appointment of lead plaintiff, defendants, including the
Company, expect the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint and
defendants, including the Company, to file a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Company intends to defend the case vigorously and has not
recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at this time,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or
determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or
remote.

Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
focused on enabling normal lives for people with autoimmune
diseases. The company is developing a novel, fully human monoclonal
antibody, IMVT-1401 (formerly referred to as RVT-1401), that
selectively binds to and inhibits the neonatal fragment
crystallizable receptor ("FcRn"). The company is based in New York,
New York.


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Court Tosses Canez's Amended Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDGARDO CANEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, J. LELAND STRANGE, MATTHEW A. WHITE, A. RUSSELL
CHANDLER III, PHILLIP H. MOISE, PARKER H. PETIT, CHERIE M. FUZZELL,
JAMES V. NAPIER, BONNIE L. HERRON, and KAREN J. REYNOLDS,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-3949 (RPK) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
Rachel P. Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Background

In an amended class action complaint, Canez alleges that
Intelligent Systems ("INS") violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b), by making misleading statements in various filings.
Canez also alleges that several Intelligent Systems officers and
directors are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
the violations committed by the company.

Intelligent Systems is a "FinTech" company. As alleged, it
"provides technology solutions and processing services to the
financial technology and services market in the United States and
the European Union" through its subsidiary CoreCard Software, Inc.
The President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board for Intelligent
Systems is J. Leland Strange. One of the directors of Intelligent
Systems was Parker H. Petit. Mr. Petit sat on the Intelligent
Systems Board as well as its Audit Committee and Compensation
Committee. The amended complaint alleges that from May 23, 2014
through May 29, 2019, Intelligent Systems made materially false or
misleading statements in public filings.

The first set of allegations concerns statements identifying Parker
H. Petit as a "financial expert." The amended complaint alleges
that Mr. Petit in fact "did not qualify as a financial expert." A
second set of allegations concerns statements identifying Mr. Petit
as an "independent director." The amended complaint alleges that
Mr. Petit lacked independence because he "had undisclosed financial
dealings" with Intelligent Systems CEO Leland J. Strange. A third
set of allegations concerns statements identifying relevant
director "relationships." And they omitted the fact that Mr.
Strange "had an undisclosed personal relationship with Intelligent
Systems' auditor."

A final set of allegations concerns statements identifying "related
party transactions." The 2014 10-K for Intelligent Systems listed
"related transactions" that may be relevant to shareholders.
Intelligent Systems also included this information in its annual
reports for the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 fiscal years, as well as
annual proxy statements for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. The
amended complaint alleges that those filings were misleading
because they omitted "additional related party transactions."

As alleged in the amended complaint, on May 23, 2019, aftermarket
hours, MiMedx Group filed a Form 8-K with the SEC that "stated that
an investigation by its audit committee found that Mr. Petit
engaged in accounting fraud when he was CEO of MiMedx Group." The
investigation "revealed accounting irregularities regarding the
recognition of revenue under generally accepted accounting
principles"; found evidence that Mr. Petit was "aware of MiMedx's
course of dealing"; found evidence that Mr. Petit "made material
misstatements and omissions about MiMedx's course of dealing"; and
found evidence that Mr. Petit "engaged in a pattern of taking
action against employees who raised concerns about MiMedx's
practices," including installing a "secret video surveillance
system."

The report ultimately concluded that Intelligent Systems "has its
employees set up or take control of undisclosed shell companies in
Asia, who then partake in undisclosed related party transactions
with INS intended to either round-trip revenue back to INS or
siphon money out of the company." The amended complaint alleges
that on this news, on the day of the report's release, "shares of
Intelligent Systems fell $6.82 from the prior day's closing price
of $33.81, or over 20%."

Mr. Canez was among the investors whose shares fell. On September
26, 2019, Mr. Canez was appointed lead plaintiff in the action to
represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities from Intelligent Systems between
January 23, 2019 and May 29, 2019. Pomerantz LLP was appointed lead
counsel.

The Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on November 18, 2019.
The amended complaint names Intelligent Systems as a defendant. The
Plaintiff also sued Mr. Strange, Mr. Petit., and other members of
the board of directors for Intelligent Systems, including former
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Matthew A. White; former CFO Bonnie
L. Herron; former CFO Karen J. Reynolds; current director A.
Russell Chandler III; current director Phillip H. Moise; former
director Cherie M. Fuzzell; and former director James V. Napier.

The first cause of action of the amended complaint asserts that
defendants made false or misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
the SEC's Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5. The second cause of action asserts that the individual
defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules
9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well
as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4 et seq.

Discussion

Judge Kovner will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss. She
explains that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful
"to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any
security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in
contravention of such rules and regulations as the SEC may
prescribe." Pursuant to that section, the SEC promulgated Rule
10b-5, which makes it unlawful "for any person, directly or
indirectly to make any untrue statement of material fact or to omit
to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading." To state a claim under these provisions, a
plaintiff must allege "(1) a material misrepresentation or omission
by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5)
economic loss; and (6) loss causation."

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim under
these principles. Allegations that the Defendants presented Mr.
Petit as a "financial expert" and an "independent director" do not
state a claim because the Plaintiff has not alleged facts
indicating that those statements were misrepresentations.
Allegations that the Defendants failed to disclose certain personal
relationships do not state a claim because the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged that the omissions made any statement materially
misleading. Allegations that the Defendants did not disclose the
Lumense transaction as a related-party transaction do not state a
claim because the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the
transaction's materiality or loss causation. And allegations that
the Defendants did not disclose the Flexopt transaction as a
related-party transaction do not state a claim because the
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged scienter with respect to that
transaction.

Decision

Accordingly, Judge Kovner granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
and the amended complaint is dismissed. The Plaintiff has requested
leave to further amend the complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that courts should "freely give" leave to amend
"when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and amendment
is especially appropriate when some allegations are dismissed under
Rule 9(b).

Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's claims without
prejudice. If the Plaintiff wishes to amend his pleadings, he will
file a motion within 21 days seeking leave to amend with the
proposed Second Amended Complaint. The motion should explain how
the Second Amended Complaint addresses the pleading defects
identified in the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6tcezy3s from Leagle.com.


INTRICON CORP: Settlement in Hoffman Suit Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2021, that the settlement agreement in the class action suit
initiated by Mark Hoffman was submitted to the Court for approval
on July 28, 2021.

On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Mark Hoffman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc.
("HHE"), a subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court
for the Western District of Washington based on specific provisions
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

HHE's investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular
Media Corp. provided Hoffman's information to HHE. Hoffman claims
he did not provide the requisite prior express written consent for
autodialed telemarketing calls regarding hearing aids to be placed
to his cellphone.

He also claims he did not provide the requisite permission for
telemarketing calls to his number registered on the Do-Not-Call
("DNC") registry.

Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman amended his
complaint several times to add additional parties, including
Triangular, Triangular's alleged owner, an alleged entity related
to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and
Intricon Corporation.

With respect to HHE, Hoffman sought to certify a class of certain
automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without
prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last
four years.

Hoffman also sought to hold the Company vicariously liable for all
of the calls HHE made without prior consent. The potential exposure
under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500 per call if the
violation is deemed willful or knowing.

On July 26, 2021, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release with Hoffman for
himself and on behalf of the settlement class relating to this
matter. The Settlement Agreement was submitted to the Court for
approval on July 28, 2021.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (a) the
Company has agreed to pay total cash consideration of $1.3 million
into a settlement fund, and (b) Hoffman and the settlement class
members agreed to a release of claims against the Company,
Intricon, Inc. and HHE relating to any claim or potential claim
relating to the marketing activities described in the complaint.

The Settlement Agreement will become effective upon the first date
after which the following events and conditions have occurred: (a)
the Court has entered a final judgment; and (b) the final judgment
has become final in that the time for appeal or writ has expired
or, if any appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the
settlement is affirmed, the time period during which further
petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of certiorari can be taken
has expired.

The $1.3 million settlement fund has been fully accrued for in the
Company's 2021 second quarter results because the amount of the
settlement was set forth in a confidential settlement term sheet
between the parties in June 2021. The settlement fund is required
to be paid within seven days after the effective date.  In entering
into the Settlement Agreement, the Company and the other defendants
are making no admission of liability.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court.

Intricon said, "If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement,
the Settlement Agreement provides for a period of time during which
class members will be notified of the settlement and given an
opportunity to file a claim to receive a settlement payment, opt
out of the class, object to the settlement or do nothing. The
Company expects that the Court will schedule a fairness hearing to
occur after the notice period, at which time the parties will
request final approval of the settlement and at which any objectors
to the settlement will be heard. If the Court gives final approval
to the settlement, the release will be effective as to all class
members who do not validly out opt of the class, regardless of
whether they filed a claim form and received a payment."

Intricon Corporation (together with its subsidiaries is an
international company and joint development manufacturer ("JDM") of
micromedical components, sub-assemblies and final devices. The
Company serves as a JDM partner to leading medical device original
equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") by designing, developing,
engineering, manufacturing, packaging and distributing micromedical
products for high growth markets, such as diabetes, peripheral
vascular, interventional pulmonology, electrophysiology and hearing
healthcare. The company is based in Arden Hills, Minnesota.


J.B. 366: Faces Ayala Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.B. 366 FOOD CORP. d/b/a BRAVO SUPERMARKET
and JUAN FRANK BATISTA, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04665-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants seeking to recover
damages and other relief for their alleged egregious violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around June
2009 until in or around September 2019 as a butcher and also to
perform other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked
approximately 60 hours or more per week for the Defendants, the
Defendants denied him of overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked
in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to keep
accurate payroll records, and willfully failed to post notices of
the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous
place at the location of their employment as required by both the
FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.

J.B. 366 Food Corp. d/b/a Bravo Supermarket operates a supermarket
owned by Juan Frank Batista. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JAMES DOLAN: Chair Filed Unsworn Declaration for Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as THE CITY OF BOCA
RATON POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. JAMES L. DOLAN, CHARLES
F. DOLAN, AIDAN J. DOLAN, KRISTIN A. DOLAN, PAUL J. DOLAN, THOMAS
C. DOLAN, KATHLEEN M. DOLAN, MARIANNE DOLAN WEBER, DEBORAH A. DOLAN
SWEENEY, WILLIAM J. BELL, JOSEPH M. COHEN, JOSEPH J. LHOTA, JOEL M.
LITVIN, STEPHEN C. MILLS, HANK J. RATNER, BRIAN G. SWEENEY and JOHN
L. SYKES, Case No. 2021-0722, Jeff Ross filed with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware his unsworn declaration and
verification of this verified stockholder class action complaint.

Jeff Ross is the chairman of the Board of Trustees of The City of
Boca Raton Police and Firefighters' Retirement System. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
         123 S. Justison St.
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 622-7065
         E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com

JUUL LABS: Cashion School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASHION PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06483 (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cashion Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 101 North Euclid Street in Cashion, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Chisholm Trail Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHISHOLM TRAIL TECHNOLOGY CENTER, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06498 (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Chisholm Trail Technology Center is a unified school district with
its offices located at 283 Highway 33 in Omega, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Forest Grove School Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FOREST GROVE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06482 (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Forest Grove Public School District is a unified school district
with its offices located on Forest Grove Road in Idabel, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Monroe School Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06479 (N.D. Cal., August
23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Monroe County Community School Corporation is a unified school
district with its offices located on East North Drive in
Bloomington, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Newcastle School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWCASTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06480 (N.D. Cal., August 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Newcastle Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 101 North Main in Newcastle, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss NY Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit filed in the New York
Federal Court, is pending.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were
pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted
by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal
has run.

In June 2020, a similar but separate putative securities class
action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in California federal court.

In September 2020, this action was transferred to the New York
federal court and Kandi moved to dismiss in March 2021.

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

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures small vehicles
including all-terrain vehicles, golf carts, motorcycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy-saving mini-cars. The company is based in the
People's Republic of China.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi's securities prior to March 15, 2019.

This action remains pending.

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

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures small vehicles
including all-terrain vehicles, golf carts, motorcycles, motor
scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy-saving mini-cars. The company is based in the
People's Republic of China.


KANZHUN LIMITED: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 10 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Kanzhun Limited (NASDAQ: BZ) investors
that acquired shares between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021.
Investors have until September 10, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.

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

Kanzhun sold about 48 million American Depositary Shares in June
2021 in relation to its initial public offering for $19 per share,
raising nearly $912 million in new capital. Kanzhun announced on
July 5, 2021 that the company was subject to a review by the
Cyberspace Administration of China and that Kanzhun's "'BOSS
Zhipin' app is required to suspend new user registration in China."
during the review period. Kanzhun's ADS price fell as much as 17%
during intraday trading on July 6, 2021 on this news, thereby
injuring investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
10, 2021.

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

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

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Thant Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Myo Thant filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled In re: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-11972-NMG, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 6, 2021, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts allowed the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint for failure to state a claim and dismissed the
SAC without prejudice.

The case is a putative securities fraud class action brought by
lead plaintiff Dr. Myo Thant, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated investors, against Karyopharm and several
Karyopharm directors and executive officers. Dr. Thant alleges that
Karyopharm investors have been harmed because they purchased the
company's common stock at prices that were artificially inflated by
the Defendants materially misleading statements and omissions about
selinexor, its leading drug candidate for the treatment of certain
advanced cancers.

Mr. Thant now seeks a review of the Order dismissing the second
amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Thant v. Karyopharm Therapeutics
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1657, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Aug. 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form and docketing statement are due on September 7, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MYO THANT, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          PO Box 67101
          Chestnut Hill, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 999-6473
          E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Adam Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th St, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290

               - and -

          Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1111 Summer St., Ste 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523

Defendants-Appellees KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS INC., MICHAEL G.
KAUFFMAN, SHARON SHACHAM, JUSTIN A. RENZ, MICHAEL F. FALVEY, GAREN
G. BOHLIN, MIKAEL DOLSTEN, SCOTT GARLAND, BARRY E. GREENE, MANSOOR
RAZA MIRZA, DEEPA R. PAKIANATHAN, and KENNETH E. WEG are
represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7220
          E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com  

               - and -

          Jocelyn M. Keider, Esq.
          Allyson T. Slater, Esq.
          Peter A. Spaeth, Esq.   
          WILMERHALE LLP
          60 State St
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-6823

KASHI SALES: Misrepresented Cereal Bars, Harris Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kashi Sales, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-04359 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 16, 2021), alleges that the representations of Soft Baked
Breakfast Bars ("cereal bars") are misleading because they give
consumers the impression the fruit filling contains a greater
relative and absolute amount of mixed berries and honey than it
does.

The front label shows a bar with dark purple filling, a background
of various shades of purple, defendant's logo with a swaying stalk
of wheat, the statements, "Mixed Berry," "3g Fiber," "Made with
Wildflower Honey," and "10g Whole Grains," and a seal indicating
"Non-GMO Project Verified."

The back of the package identifies the components of the "mixed
berries," through images of two fresh blueberries, one plump
blackberry and a ripe strawberry, along with a smattering of
freshly harvested oats.

The purple background contains the statements "Simply Delicious,"
and Delightfully Nutritious."

According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresented and/or
omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product, that it had a
greater amount of berry and honey ingredients, and expected a
non-de minimis amount of these ingredients. The Defendant's
fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the Product was
not consistent with its representations.

Kashi manufactures, labels, markets, and sells Soft Baked Breakfast
Bars ("cereal bars") labeled as "Mixed Berry" under the Kashi brand
("Product").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned McIntosh v. Katapult
Holdings, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-7251) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult
Holdings, Inc. ("Katapult" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KPLT) f/k/a
FinServ Acquisition Corp. ("FinServ") securities between December
18, 2020 and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Katapult investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/katapult-holdings-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

Katapult claims to be a "next-generation platform for digital and
mobile-first commerce focused on the non-prime consumer," providing
point-of-sale lease-purchase options for non-prime consumers who
cannot access traditional financing products.

On June 9, 2021, Katapult became a public company via business
combination with FinServ, a blank check company formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination with one or more businesses.

On August 10, 2021, Katapult issued a press release announcing
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2021
including a net loss of $8.1 million, compared to $5.1 million in
net income for the second quarter of 2020. The Company further
disclosed that it "observed meaningful [negative] changes in both
e-commerce retail sales forecasts and consumer spending behavior"
and retracted its full year 2021 guidance, claiming it could not
"accurately predict our consumer's buying behaviors for the
remainder of the year."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.47, or more than
56%, to close at $4.26 per share on August 10, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Katapult was experiencing declining e-commerce
retail sales and consumer spending, (2) that despite Katapult's
assertions that it was clear and compelling value proposition to
both consumers and merchants, transforming the way nonprime
consumers shop for essential goods and enabling merchant access to
this underserved segment, Katapult lacked visibility into its
consumers' future buying behavior; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

KEYSTONE RV: Cole Appeals Judgment in RV Health Hazard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Judith Cole, et al., filed an appeal from court rulings
entered in the lawsuit styled JUDITH COLE, et al., v. KEYSTONE RV
COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-05182-TSZ, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 2, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order holding that (1) Keystone's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' CPA claim is
dismissed with prejudice; and (2) the pending motion to Exclude
Plaintiffs' Expert Witness is stricken as moot.

Keystone RV manufactures recreational vehicles in North America.
Plaintiffs Cole, Louis Michael, and David Johnson each purchased
new or used Keystone recreational vehicles from Keystone dealers.
All three claim they were not effectively warned of the risk of
injury resulting from the ordinary use of their RVs; specifically,
the effects of prolonged occupancy on indoor air quality due to
moisture, mold, and formaldehyde. They sued in 2018, asserting
claims under the Washington Auto Dealers Practice Act ("ADPA"), the
Consumer Protection Act, and the UCC.  

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs assert that Keystone violated this
provision by not disclosing: (1) any of the serious health hazards
which can result from the ordinary use of an RV, (2) any
restrictions on the prolonged occupancy of an RV, and (3) any of
the warranty exclusions for living in an RV. Resp. But Plaintiffs
make only conclusory statements that Keystone violated the ADPA,
which is insufficient to survive summary judgment. Even so, the
Court has already determined that Keystone's representations on
mold, prolonged occupancy, formaldehyde, and its limited warranty
were not deceptive. Again, the Plaintiffs' failure to meet this
first element is fatal to their claim and the Court need not
address the other elements."

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the order entered by Judge
Zilly. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's
Order denying their second motion to compel; Court's Order granting
in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for protective
order; Court's Order denying Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration; and Court's Order denying Plaintiff's motion to
certify class.

The appellate case is captioned as Judith Cole, et al. v. Keystone
RV Company, Case No. 21-35701, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 23, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Judith Cole, David Johnson and Louise Michael
Mediation Questionnaire was due August 30, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by September 21, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on October 21, 2021;

   -- Appellants Judith Cole, David Johnson and Louise Michael
opening brief is due on November 30, 2021;

   -- Appellee Keystone RV Company answering brief is due on
December 30, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JUDITH COLE, a single person; LOUISE MICHAEL,
a single person; and DAVID JOHNSON, a single person; for themselves
and as representatives of a putative class of similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Guy William Beckett, Esq.
          BERRY & BECKETT LAW, PLLP
          1708 Bellevue Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98122-2017
          Telephone: (206) 441-5444

               - and -

          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR.
          144 Railroad Avenue, Suite 308
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (206) 527-2700
          E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kelly Walsh Holler, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN
          26207 Woodland Way S
          Kent, WA 98030
          Telephone: (206) 334-5062  

Defendant-Appellee KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, FKA Keystone RV Company
LLC, is represented by:

          Joseph P. Corr, Esq.
          CORR DOWNS PLLC
          100 West Harrison Street, N440
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 962-5042
          E-mail: jcorr@corrdowns.com  

               - and -

          Aaron Orheim, Esq.
          Philip A. Talmadge, Esq.
          TALMADGE/FITZPATRICK
          2775 Harbor Avenue SW
          Third Floor, Suite C
          Seattle, WA 98126
          Telephone: (206) 574-6661

KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Jolly Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD JOLLY and AMIR ZIAGHAM, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Similarly Situated Individuals v. KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT,
INC. D/B/A KNIGHTSBRIDGE RESTAURANT GROUP; RASIKA WEST END, LLC;
ASHOK BAJAJ, Case No. 1:21-cv-02163 (D.D.C., Aug. 12, 2021) is a
class and collective action complaint against the Defendants
seeking to recover damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act
Revision Act of 1992 ("DCMWA"), and the District of Columbia Wage
Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL").

Rasika West operates as a large, upscale, Indian restaurant located
at 1190 New Hampshire Ave NW, Washington. Knightsbridge does
business as Knightsbridge Restaurant Group, which consists of
Annabelle, Modena, Bombay Club, Bindass Cleveland Park, Bindass
Foggy Bottom, La Bise, Rasika, and Rasika West End. Knightsbridge
Management, Inc. is the parent company and/or joint venture of each
of the Knightsbridge Restaurants. Ashok Bajaj owns and operates
Knightsbridge Management, Inc. and Rasika West End, LLC.

Ronald Jolly was employed by Defendants in the District of Columbia
as a Bar Tender. Mr. Jolly worked for Defendants from February 2017
until December 2020 as a Bar Tender. Mr. Jolly worked on average,
45 hours per week.

Amir Ziagham was employed by Defendants in the District of Columbia
as a server. He worked for Defendants from March 2014 until
December 2019 as a server -- except that he did not work for
roughly 3 months in 2018. Mr Zaigham worked on average,
approximately 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs contend that they were employees who, while engaged
in employment duties, handled, sold, and otherwise worked on goods
and materials (namely food, drinks, cleaning supplies, and other
related items) that were moved in or produced for commerce.

On July 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
tolling agreement. This agreement tolled all statutes of limitation
for alleged violations of the FLSA, the DCMWA, and the DCWPCL.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michfel K. Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Landers Sues Over Defective Ventilators
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Landers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North
America LLC and Philips RS North America, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-00740 (E.D. Ark., August 20, 2021), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory, actual, statutory, consequential,
punitive and/or any other form of damages, restitution,
disgorgement and/or other equitable relief, costs of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, and, where applicable, expert
fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest, award of such other
and further relief resulting from breach of implied warranty.

Philips recalled its Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure, Continuous
Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and mechanical ventilator devices
involving an estimated 3 million to 4 million devices globally.
Said products contained polyester based polyurethane foam that
degrades and can be inhaled by the users, causing health risks,
including respiratory issues and cancer.

Landers was diagnosed with sleep apnea. He purchased a Philips
DreamStation CPAP. Because of the defect, he claims to be facing
the risk of possible exposure to off-gassed or degraded
polyurethane foam in the devices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Will Crowder, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
      Tel: (501) 374-1058
      Fax: (501) 374-2222
      Email: tomthrash@thrashlawfirmpa.com
             willcrowder@thrashlawfinnpa.com


LABOR SOURCE: Speight Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA, NCWHA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SPEIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112-FL (E.D.N.C.,
Aug. 12, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").

The Plaintiff brings this collective action on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated individuals who have worked for Labor
Source anywhere in the United States as hourly, non-exempt
employees performing restoration, renovation, environmental,
roofing, or other construction work, including but not limited to
laborers, non-exempt team leads, non-commercial drivers,
technicians, carpenters, apprentices, cleaning crew, plumbers,
welders, and other laborers with similar job duties.

The Plaintiff also brings a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for laborers who have worked for
Labor Source in North Carolina. The Plaintiff and the putative
Class and Collective Members challenge Labor Source's minimum wage
and overtime violations of the FLSA, as well as the wage, hour,
labor, and other applicable laws of the State of North Carolina.

Labor Source has local offices throughout the country, including
Kansas City, St. Louis, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Brownsville,
Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Goldsboro, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff, Class, and Collective Members are hourly non-exempt
employees under federal and state wage-and-hour laws and should
receive minimum wage and overtime pay consistent with the
requirements of those laws. However, Labor Source does not pay
their laborers proper minimum wage and overtime as required by law.
By making various deductions from the workers' pay, Labor Source
decreases Plaintiff's, Class, and Collective Members' hourly rates
of pay, often so that the rates fall below the requisite minimum
and time-and-a-half rates required by Federal and state law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (510) 740-2946
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 338-2560
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: mburke@schneiderwallace.com
                  whogg@schneiderwallace.com

LANDS' END: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Gilbert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GWYNETH GILBERT, MICHAEL MARTE, MONICA DESCRESCENTIS,
RACHEL ABUKHDEIR, and STEPHANIE ANDREWS, on behalf of themselves
and the putative class, Plaintiffs v. LANDS' END, INC., Defendant,
Case Nos. 19-cv-823-jdp, 19-cv-1066-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin:

    (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   (ii) denied Defendant Lands' End's motion for sanctions;

  (iii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
        judgment; and

   (iv) granted Defendant Lands' End's motion for partial summary
        judgment.

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Delta Air Lines,
Inc. who wore uniforms manufactured by Defendant Lands' End. The
Plaintiffs say that the uniforms were defective because they
transferred dye onto clothing and other property, and because they
caused health problems, including skin rashes, hair loss, and
headaches.

In 2016, Lands' End contracted with Delta to manufacture uniforms
for Delta employees. In the Uniform Apparel Agreement (UAA) between
Lands' End and Delta, Lands' End warranted that the Delta uniform
would: (1) conform to the Sealed Samples, general specifications,
and meet the wear life expectancies for each Product as specified;
(2) meet all applicable regulatory requirements; (3) be suitable
for its intended use before the public; and (4) be free of defects
in material and workmanship.

The agreement also required that the garments meet a minimum of a
"good" rating on independent lab tests, including for: wet/dry
crocking (color transfer from the garment onto something else);
colorfastness to cleaning; abrasion; laundry performance; pilling;
and resilience of fabric. The general specifications required that
the uniforms "be colorfast and uniformly dyed and preshrunk within
industry uniform tolerances (meet or exceed American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association of Textile
Chemist and Colorists (AATCC) standards)."

Lands' End manufactured nearly 100 different garments as part of
the Delta uniform, including dresses, skirts, shirts, blouses,
sweaters, jackets, and pants. Various chemical additives and
finishes were used during the manufacturing process to make the
garments stretchy, wrinkle- and stain-resistant, waterproof,
anti-static, and deodorizing. Different chemical treatments were
applied to different garments comprising the Delta uniform.

Delta officially launched the uniforms on May 29, 2018. Before the
uniform launch, Delta gave each employee a set of uniform pieces
free of charge. Delta also gave each employee allotment credits
that they could use to purchase additional uniform items. If Delta
employees wanted even more items, employees could purchase garments
from Lands' End with their own money.

Since the Delta uniform launch in May 2018, the uniforms have been
worn by approximately 64,000 Delta employees. The vast majority of
employees who wore the uniforms have not complained to Lands' End
about problems with the uniforms. But between June 2018 and July
2019, Lands' End received 2,470 complaints from Delta employees
about the uniforms. Lands' End divided the complaints into the
following categories: skin irritation (1,192); allergies (419); and
crocking (358). Lands' End also received complaints that did not
fall into these categories, including complaints about hair loss
and headaches.

The UAA permitted Delta employees to return uniform pieces that
were unsatisfactory. Several Delta employees used the return
process outlined in the UAA and returned garments to Lands' End for
exchanges or refunds. Lands' End also reimbursed several Delta
employees for personal property that was damaged by crocking. In
November 2019, Delta changed its policy to permit employees to wear
black and white clothing, under certain circumstances, instead of
the Lands' End garments. Approximately half of Delta's flight
attendants now wear black and white clothing.

On September 25, 2020, after the lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiffs'
counsel sent a letter to Lands' End regarding the Delta uniform,
stating in full: "Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
hereby make a demand upon Lands' End for a full refund on behalf of
all Plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph 8B of the Uniform Apparel
Agreement."

Lands' End responded on October 8, 2020, stating that the UAA did
not entitle the Plaintiffs to demand a refund without following the
UAA's specific procedures for initiating and completing a return.
Lands' End also stated that not all the Plaintiffs were entitled to
a refund because some had returned their items and received a
refund already, some were no longer actively employed with Delta,
and some did not pay for their Delta uniform in the first place.
The Plaintiffs did not respond to Lands' End's letter.

Several motions are before the Court. The Plaintiffs have moved to
certify classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for two of
their claims: (1) breach of an express warranty guaranteeing 100%
satisfaction with the uniforms; and (2) breach of an express
warranty guaranteeing that the uniforms would be free of defects in
material and workmanship. The Plaintiffs also have moved for
partial summary judgment on the same two warranty claims. Lands'
End has filed a motion for discovery sanctions and a cross-motion
for partial summary judgment on the 100% satisfaction guarantee
claim.

Analysis

A. Motion for sanctions

Lands' End accuses the Plaintiffs of withholding laboratory results
from October 2020 despite Lands' End's discovery requests for such
results. Lands' End asks the Court to: (1) prohibit the Plaintiffs
from relying on the undisclosed laboratory results; (2) strike all
portions of any pleading or expert report relying on the documents;
(3) require that, within 14 days and on an ongoing basis
thereafter, the Plaintiffs disclose any other lab results in their
custody or control; and (4) award Lands' End its expenses and fees
associated with both motions for sanctions. Plaintiffs concede that
they should have identified the lab results on a privilege log, but
state that they provided the lab results to Lands' End shortly
after deciding to provide them to their testifying expert.

Judge Peterson holds that Lands' End motion will be denied. He
opines that the Plaintiffs' explanation for their failure to timely
disclose the lab results is not particularly persuasive, but the
additional reports are only a modest supplementation to their
expert disclosure. In addition, Lands' End had a significant amount
of time to review the reports before its own expert disclosures
were due. So the Judge is not persuaded that Lands' End would be
prejudiced unfairly by the supplement.

B. Class certification and partial summary judgment

The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification and partial
summary judgment on two of their breach of warranty claims. First,
they contend that Lands' End breached Section 8.B of the UAA, which
expressly warrants that Delta employees can return or exchange
their uniforms for any reason if they are not 100% satisfied with
them. Second, they contend that Lands' End breached an express
warranty in the UAA Sections 8.A.2, 3 and 4; Section 9.A.3 and 4;
and Exhibit G (general specifications), that the unform pieces
would be colorfast and defect free.

The Plaintiffs argue that class treatment would be the most
efficient way to resolve these claims, and that there are no
material factual disputes that prevent summary judgment in their
favor. Lands' End responds that class treatment would be improper
because there are too many individualized questions of law and
fact. In addition, Lands' End argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of the 100% satisfaction
warranty claim.

The parties agree that Delaware law applies to the Plaintiffs'
express warranty claims. To succeed on a breach of express warranty
claim under Delaware Law, the Plaintiffs must prove that: (1) a
warranty existed; (2) Lands' End breached the warranty; and (3) the
Plaintiffs incurred damages as a result. The Plaintiffs must also
prove compliance with any conditions precedent that Lands' End has
imposed with respect to the warranty.

1. 100% guarantee claim

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class of Delta
employees who were not 100% satisfied with the uniforms provided by
Lands' End. Both sides seek summary judgment on this breach of
warranty claim. The Plaintiffs' argument in support of summary
judgment on this claim is simple. They state that because they
joined the lawsuit, they were necessarily unsatisfied with the
uniforms provided by Lands' End. And because they were unsatisfied,
Lands' End has breached the express warranty provision in Section
8.B of the UAA by failing to provide them with refunds.

Judge Peterson holds that the Plaintiffs' argument ignores the
plain language of the express warranty provision in Section 8.B.
And under Delaware law, the text of the express warranty controls.
The Plaintiffs do not even allege that they tried to return their
uniforms, let alone submit evidence showing that Lands' End refused
to provide them a refund. The Plaintiffs make several arguments in
attempt to save their claim, but none is persuasive.

The Plaintiffs also argue that they should not have to return their
uniforms to receive a refund. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs'
argument is again contrary to the express terms of the UAA, which
states that employees can receive a refund or exchange only after
returning their uniform items with a return or exchange form.

Finally, the Plaintiffs suggest that the Court could grant
"conditional summary judgment," and require them to return their
uniforms to Lands' End before receiving a refund. However, the
Plaintiffs cite no legal authority that would permit a court to
condition summary judgment on the parties performing specific acts.
And they do not explain why they need a court order to direct
Lands' End to comply with a warranty provision that they have
agreed to comply with already. The laintiffs' suggestion that the
Court grants "conditional summary judgment" simply confirms that
they have not shown any breach of Section 8.B.

For all of these reasons, Judge Peterson holds that Lands' End's
motion for partial summary judgment will be granted, and the
Plaintiffs' claim that Lands' End breached the express warranty in
Section 8.B will be dismissed. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class on that claim will be denied as moot.

2. Crocking claim

The Plaintiffs contend that Lands' End breached another express
warranty in the UAA -- that the Delta uniforms would be "free from
defects in material and workmanship" -- by providing uniforms that
crocked and transferred dye onto clothing and other personal
property. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Delta
employees who experienced crocking, and they contend that all class
members who experienced crocking are entitled to summary judgment
and compensation for personal property damages. Lands' End did not
move for summary judgment on this claim, and resolving the
Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion first would not affect the
outcome of class certification. So Judge Peterson addresses the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification first.

C. Class certification

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of Delta
employees who have experienced the bleeding of colors and/or
crocking onto their personal property from the uniforms provided by
Lands' End. They seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which
applies when "the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,"
and "a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The
Plaintiffs also suggest that the court could certify a class under
Rule 23(c)(4) with respect to particular issues, including whether
Lands' End breached a warranty by providing defective garments.

Judge Peterson holds that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
crocking class under Rule 23 will be denied. He finds that the
Plaintiffs have not shown that the proposed class meets the
commonality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2). They have not identified
other evidence that would help them prove, on a class-wide basis,
that each class member who experienced crocking had a uniform piece
that failed to meet industry tolerances and UAA testing
requirements or was otherwise defective under the UAA. The
Plaintiffs have not made a convincing argument that common issues
could be resolved on a classwide basis in light of these numerous
individualized differences.

In addition, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs also have not
shown that a class action would be a superior method of litigating
the case, as required under Rule 23(b)(3). He says, the proposed
individualized inquiry would present a significant burden that is
not justified in light of the problems with the proposed class
identified.

D. Partial summary judgment

The Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment on their breach of
warranty claim for all Plaintiffs who experienced crocking. They
contend that all garments that exhibited any crocking or dye
transfer are automatically defective. But, Judge Peterson holds
that there are genuine factual disputes about whether the uniform
pieces that crocked were defective. There are factual disputes
about how much crocking or color transfer is acceptable in the
industry, whether Lands' End uniforms met industry and UAA
standards, and whether crocking was caused by factors outside
Lands' End's control. In addition, there are disputed issues of
fact regarding whether the Plaintiffs suffered compensable harm,
and whether Lands' End has already compensated the Plaintiffs for
their harm.

Because there are genuine and material factual disputes, the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment will be denied.

Order

In light of the foregoing, Judge Peterson (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) denied Defendant
Lands' End's motion for sanctions; (iii) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment; and (iv) granted Defendant
Lands' End's motion for partial summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ustsm8f from Leagle.com.


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Student Fee Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company's motion for reconsideration as to the remaining claim in
the class action suit in connection with transitioning from
in-person to online classes due to COVID-19, is pending. The
company awaits the ruling.

Following a wave of hundreds of class action lawsuits being served
upon colleges and universities across the country by students in
connection with transitioning from in-person to online classes due
to COVID-19, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in New Jersey Federal District Court and served on December 21,
2020.  

Like most of the other lawsuits across the country, the suit
alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.  

In lieu of an Answer, on January 25, 2021 the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a
Claim.

On July 9, 2021, the court granted the Company's Motion to dismiss
the breach of contract, unjust enrichment claims for tuition and
registration fees and conversion claims in their entirety. The only
claim remaining is for student and technology fees, where the judge
stated it was premature to dismiss those claims.  

On July 23, 2021, the Company submitted its Motion for
Reconsideration as to the remaining claim and awaits a ruling in
this regard.

Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, provides various career-oriented post-secondary
education services in the United States. The Company was founded in
1946 and is based in West Orange, New Jersey.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid to Amend Glover Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint styled Glover
v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, remains pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on the company (LNL) on June
8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  

In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania
entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).


Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC)
breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

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

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

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master
File No. 2:17-cv-04150.

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

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated
Wealth Management, LTD.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost  of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders.  


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

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that The
Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company
of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company.

Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.  

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the defense of this case.  

On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.  

The court has not yet set a trial date, and we continue to
vigorously defend this action.

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit pending before the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.

On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.

The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person
liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden
failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with
reinsurance provided to AmTrust.

Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings'
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of
all Defendants.

On August 6, 2021, the Court issued an order denying, in part,
Defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a
shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and
permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis.

Maiden said, "We believe the claims are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend ourselves. It is possible that additional
lawsuits will be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and
its respective officers due to the diminution in value of our
securities as a result of our operating results and financial
condition. It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such
litigation on our business, operating results and financial
condition."

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States, Europe, and select other global
markets. The company operates internationally providing branded
auto and credit life insurance products through insurer partners to
retail clients in the EU and other global markets through Maiden
Global Holdings, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. The company is based in
Pembroke, Bermuda.


MALLINCKRODT ARD: Plumbers Union Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL
322 OF SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, LLC; f/k/a
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. f/k/a Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MALLINCKRODT PLC; CIGNA HOLDING COMPANY; CIGNA CORPORATION; EXPRESS
SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CURASCRIPT, INC.;
CURASCRIPT SD; PRIORITY HEALTHCARE CORP. AND PRIORITY HEALTHCARE
DISTRIBUTION, INC., doing business as CURASCRIPT SD AND CURASCRIPT
SPECIALTY DISTRIBUTION SD, respectively; ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP,
INC.; UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION now known as UNITED BIOSOURCE
LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of UNITED BIOSOURCE HOLDINGS, INC.;
and LISA PRATTA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00188, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware on August 23, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-01201-UNA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
the New Jersey Antitrust Act, and the New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern
New Jersey is a labor union in New Jersey.

Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, f/k/a Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc. f/k/a Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in
Anaheim, California.

Mallinckrodt PLC is a pharmaceutical company based in United
Kingdom.

Cigna Holding Company is an American multinational managed
healthcare and insurance company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.

Cigna Corporation is an insurance company based in Connecticut.

Express Scripts Holding Company is a pharmacy benefit management
organization based in St. Louis, Missouri.

Express Scripts, Inc. is a company that offers pharmacy benefit
management services based in St. Louis, Missouri.

Curascript, Inc. is a company that offers specialty pharmacy
services based in St. Louis, Missouri.

Curascript SD is a company that offers specialty pharmacy services
based in Lake Mary, Florida.

Priority Healthcare Corp. is a national distributor of specialty
pharmaceuticals and related medical supplies in Michigan.

Accredo Health Group, Inc. is a provider of pharmacy services based
in Memphis, Tennessee.

United Biosource Corporation, now known as United Biosource LLC, is
a provider of pharmaceutical support services based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
        
         Jonathan D. Weiss, Esq.
         Matthew J. Behr, Esq.
         MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
         15000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 200
         P.O. Box 5429
         Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

MAPLEBEAR INC: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Levine Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LEVINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MAPLEBEAR. INC. (d/b/a INSTACART), Case No. 21-1853E
(Mass. Sup., Aug. 12, 2021) is brought on behalf of individuals who
have worked for Maplebear as delivery drivers or full-service
shoppers in Massachusetts.

Instacart provides on-demand grocery shopping and grocery delivery
services through a mobile phone application and website. Instacart
is based in San Francisco, California, but it does business across
the United States and extensively throughout Massachusetts.

According to the complaint, Instacart has willfully misclassified
its drivers as independent contractors in violation of Mass. Gen.
Law by failing to reimburse these drivers' necessary business
expenses such as gas and car maintenance and by failing to pay
these drivers the Massachusetts minimum wage after accounting for
drivers' expenses and excluding their tips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephoner: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@lirlaw.com
                  mcassorla@lilrlaw.com

MARINO PERFORMANCE: Class Certification Order in Zuniga Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARINO PERFORMANCE, INC., Appellant v. JOSE CARLOS
ZUNIGA and JUAN C. ZUNIGA, JR., Appellees, Case No. 4D20-1463 (Fla.
App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth
District affirms the non-final order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class in an action against Marino for unfair
and deceptive trade practices.

Background

In December 2018, after purchasing vehicles from Marino, the
Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that Marino
engaged in deceptive practices regarding certain fees. Marino
answered the complaint and raised seven affirmative defenses. At no
time did Marino raise the issue of arbitration even though an
arbitration provision was included in the contract between Marino
and each vehicle purchaser. The parties engaged in discovery, with
both sides serving interrogatories and requests for production of
documents. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses from
Marino, but again Marino did not raise the existence of an
arbitration agreement.

In April 2019, Marino moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing
that the type of damages sought in the class action were
unavailable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("FDUTPA"). The circuit court denied the motion.

In November 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, and
the court set a hearing on the motion. Days before the hearing, in
January of 2020, Marino filed its motion to compel arbitration "in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,"
raising arbitration as an issue for the first time fourteen months
after the class action complaint had been filed. Marino contended
that it did not waive its right to arbitrate because its prior
filings were defensive in nature.

Following the hearing, the court entered an order on the motion for
class certification, determining that there has been a waiver of
the right to compel arbitration in the case. Whether the state or
federal test for waiver applies is immaterial as both standards
have been met. The Answer did not demand arbitration; discovery was
tendered and responded to. There was a delay of 14 months before
the motion to compel was filed on the eve of the hearing on the
motion to certify. Therefore, the arbitration issue is insufficient
to defeat numerosity.

At a later hearing on an issue related to the element of
representation as to one of the class representatives, Marino
argued that even if the court previously found a waiver of its
right to arbitrate as to the Plaintiffs, it did not follow that a
waiver occurred as to the unnamed class members.

After supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the waiver
should also apply to the unnamed class members, the court entered
its supplemental order on motion for class certification. It ruled
that Marino waived its right to arbitrate as to the unnamed class
members.

In so ruling, the ultimate question for the court was whether: By
its actions in the litigation, Marino provided fair notice to the
Plaintiffs that it intended to enforce its rights to arbitration in
this case, or at a minimum that it intended to treat the named
Plaintiffs differently from the unnamed putative class members with
respect to its decision or not to seek arbitration.

The court emphasized that Marino did not raise arbitration as an
affirmative defense in its answer or affirmative defenses "or
otherwise reserve the right to assert arbitration as an affirmative
defense against either the named Plaintiffs or the unnamed putative
class members."

The court discussed Marino's filing of a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, where Marino "took the chance of seeking a dismissal of
all claims without advising the Court or the Plaintiff that if it
lost it would then seek arbitration of the claims of the unnamed
putative class members." The court emphasized that Marino did
nothing prior to the filing of its motion to compel arbitration to
indicate that it was preserving its rights to seek arbitration in
the event of class certification.

The court ultimately concluded that Marino "substantially invoked
the litigation machinery prior to demanding arbitration." The main
concern for the court was that Marino engaged in class discovery
without objecting or preserving its right to compel arbitration as
to the unnamed class members.

The timely appeal followed.

Analysis

Marino argues that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over
the unnamed class members until after the class was certified, and
therefore, prior to certification, Marino had no right to demand
arbitration against the unnamed members. Thus, Marino contends that
its pre-certification conduct could not operate to waive its right
to arbitration since the right did not exist at that time.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court correctly
determined that Marino waived its right to compel arbitration as to
the unnamed class members. The Plaintiffs maintain that Marino
acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights and did not assert
its intent to arbitrate prior to engaging in extensive discovery.

The Court of Appeal agrees with the circuit court that the
reasoning in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 889 F.3d 1230 (11th
Cir. 2018), is instructive in analyzing the case. In Gutierrez,
Wells Fargo appealed the district court's denial of its motion to
compel arbitration with the unnamed plaintiffs comprising the
classes after the bank's customers filed five class actions. The
Eleventh Circuit ultimately reversed the district court's finding
of waiver as to the unnamed plaintiffs, determining that Wells
Fargo did not waive its right to arbitrate as to the unnamed class
members, because it had provided fair notice that it reserved its
right to arbitrate against the unnamed class members. Thus, it had
not acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights.

Conclusion

Consistent with the reasoning in Gutierrez, the Court of Appeal
holds that under the totality of circumstances, the circuit court
correctly determined that Marino waived its right to arbitrate as
to the unnamed class members. It never provided fair notice to the
Plaintiffs or the court of its right and engaged in a litigation
strategy of "outcome oriented gamesmanship." Accordingly, the Court
of Appeal affirmed.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/czdd26j2 from Leagle.com.

Hinda Klein -- hklein@conroysimberg.com -- and Samuel B. Spinner --
sspinner@conroysimberg.com -- of Conroy Simberg, in Hollywood, for
the Appellant.

George W. Kramer -- gkramerlaw@gmail.com -- and Debra D. Klingsberg
-- dklingsberglaw@gmail.com -- of the Law Offices of Kramer &
Klingsberg, in Delray Beach, for the Appellees.


MATTEL INC: Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a number
of putative class action lawsuits related to the Fisher-Price Rock
'n Play Sleeper.

A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against
Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false
advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud,
and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper.

In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose
nationwide and over 15 statewide consumer classes comprised of
those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged
and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated
before a single judge for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the
federal courts' Multi-District Litigation program.

Forty-one additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price,
Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper
caused the fatalities of or injuries to forty-five children.

Several lawsuits have been settled and/or dismissed.

Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also
received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional
plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.

In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et
al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale
of the Sleeper.

The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's
current and former officers and directors. In August 2020, the
derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the
class action lawsuits.

The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief.

Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time."

Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend suits,
including class action suits related to the whistleblower letter
and claim that the company misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.

In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate
complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced
by Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower
letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the
plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v.
Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are
substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of
the class action lawsuits.

The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's
current and former officers and directors, Mattel, Inc., and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Subsequently, a nearly identical
derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the
same defendants.

The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a
complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed
lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v.
Kreiz, et al., amended complaint filed April 16, 2020).

In May 2020, the Moher and Lombardi derivative actions were
consolidated and stayed pending further developments in the class
action lawsuits. In June 2021, a third similar derivative action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (Chagnon v. Kreiz, et al., filed June 22, 2021).

Three additional derivative actions asserting similar claims are
also pending in Delaware Chancery Court (Owen v. Euteneuer, et al.,
filed May 12, 2021; Andersen v. Georgiadis, et al., filed May 18,
2021; and Armon v. Euteneuer, et al., filed June 29, 2021).

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief.

Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time."

Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.


MDL 2244: Murphy's Hip Implant Case Moved to N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation, "In Re: Depuy Orthopaedics,
Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2244, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers MURPHY v. KB
ORTHOPEDICS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:21−00049 (D. Mont., May 6,
2021) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge James E.
Kinkeade for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The action shares factual questions arising from alleged injuries
from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants. Plaintiff
moved to vacate the conditional transfer order principally by
arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over her case arguing
that her claim must receive prompt attention due to her advanced
age. The panel contends that the case is best addressed by the
transferee judge, who can structure pretrial proceedings to
accommodate the needs of all parties to this litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3gytzqJ

MDL 2738: Valdez's Talcum Powder Liability Row Moved to D. N. J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over Johnson & Johnson's talcum
powder, MDL No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers Manuel
Valdez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al., Case No.
3:21-00873 (August 18, 2021, S.D. Cal.) to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to Judge Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Said complaint involves allegations that Johnson & Johnson's talcum
powder products cause ovarian cancer following perineal
application.

Valdez moved to vacate said transfer order for inclusion in MDL No.
2738 arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over his case
is lacking, and that his pending motion for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer. However, the Panel has held that
such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer. Valdez also argued that transfer will
inconvenience him because his witnesses primarily are in California
but the panel contends that there usually is no need for parties or
witnesses to travel to the transferee court for depositions or
court hearings.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3myfRbc

MDL 2741: Salas' Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2741, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring Nancy C.
Salas v. Monsanto Company, et. al., Case. No. 1:21-21217 (August
11, 2021, S.D. Fla.) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and assigned to the Honorable Vince Chhabria
for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

These actions involve common questions of fact arising out of
allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Like
the plaintiffs in the MDL, plaintiff in the Salas action asserts
product liability claims against Monsanto and alleges that exposure
to Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and share multiple factual
issues with the cases already in the MDL.

Salas moved to vacate said transfer order arguing that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over her case is lacking, and that her
pending motion for remand to state court should be decided before
transfer. However, the panel has held that such jurisdictional
objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3my9nJo


MDL 2804: Harris County Hospital v. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case docketed as Harris
County Hospital District v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:21−01450 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2021) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 2804.

Harris County Hospital initially moved to vacate said order
conditionally transferring its action while defendants
AmerisourceBergen Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation,
Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation oppose the motion.

The action alleges improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country. Defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, CVS
Health, Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis
Pharma, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan U.S.A., Inc., Cephalon
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson Laboratories Inc. are
pharmaceutical companies and dealers.

The panel finds this action shares a factual core with the MDL
actions alleging that the manufacturer and distributor defendants'
alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these
prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly
improper marketing of the drugs and thus falls within the MDL's
ambit. Plaintiff's argument that federal jurisdiction is lacking
over its case does not present an impediment to transfer and that
given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings,
transfer is justified to facilitate the efficient conduct of the
litigation as a whole and not just those of a single plaintiff or
defendant in isolation.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3kmnDSq

MDL 2875: Payne v. Camber Pharma Transferred to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over hypertension medications
Valsartan, Losartan and Irbesartan, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transfers the case docketed as Ulysses Payne v. Camber
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:21-cv-00495 (N.D. Al.,
August 11, 2021) to U.S. District Court of New Jersey and, with the
consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Robert B. Kugler for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
in MDL No. 2875.

Payne moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring the
action to MDL No. 2875. Said actions involve common factual
questions arising from allegations that generic formulations of
valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan contain nitrosamine impurities
and that the nitrosamines present a risk of cancer and other
injuries. Payne principally argues that his action was improperly
removed and that the interest of efficiency is best served by
allowing the transferor court to rule on the jurisdictional
objections raised in his motion for remand to state court and that
transfer will be inconvenient and impose an undue hardship.
However, the Panel has held that such jurisdictional objections
generally do not present an impediment to transfer and that Payne's
motion for remand to state court recently was denied by the
transferor court, undercutting the basis for his objection to
transfer and that the overall interests of convenience and
efficiency will be served by transfer, as the action shares
significant factual questions with the actions in the MDL, and
likely will benefit from the common discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 11, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3sIeYxN

MDL 2913: Browne v. JUUL Labs Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2913, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order transferring Karen Browne v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00468, (N.D. N.Y., August 13, 2021) to the Northern
District of California and assigned to Judge William H. Orrick III
for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Said action alleges that JUUL has marketed its nicotine delivery
products in a manner designed to attract minors, its marketing
misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and
addictive than cigarettes and JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors and
promotes nicotine addiction.

The panel says that these actions involve common questions of fact
with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2913 and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and  efficient conduct of the litigation.

Browne argues that her claims under New York common law against a
New York retailer defendant are not shared by other actions in the
MDL and thus should preclude transfer. The panel has held that such
jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to
transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ylmy2B


MDL 2924: Golden v. Sanofi-Aventis Case Transferred to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers Case No. 2:21-03793 (Marina
Golden v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, C.D. Cal., May 4, 2021) to the
Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 29924.

Golden moves to vacate the order that conditionally transferred her
case to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No.
2924 arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction over her case
is lacking, and that her pending motion for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer and will cause her inconvenience
because the parties and witnesses primarily are in California. The
panel has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not
present an impediment to transfer considering that Golden's case
involves allegations that she developed cancer caused by use of
over-the-counter Zantac. The panel hold that Golden will share
common factual questions with the actions already in the MDL and
will benefit from inclusion in the common discovery and coordinated
pretrial proceedings

Defendants' ranitidine-containing medications allegedly break down
to form an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA). Plaintiff Marina Golden alleges that Defendants were aware
of this danger but continued to sell these medications to
consumers.

Defendants include GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chattem Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Sanofi US Services Inc., Perrigo Research & Development Company,
Lannett Company, Inc., Novitium Pharma LLC, Aurobindo Pharma USA,
Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
USA, Appco Pharma LLC, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc.,
Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Strides Pharma,
Inc., Teligent, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., CVS Health Corp., CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., The Kroger Co., Smith Food & Drug Centers, Inc.,
Fred Meyer, Inc., Target Corp., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
Walgreens Co., Walmart Inc., and Pfizer Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 12, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/38564kf


MDL 2989: Thompson v. Robinhood Fin'l. Transferred to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers Case No. 2:21-02230 (Thompson v.
Robinhood Financial LLC) to the Southern District of Florida and
with the consent of that court, assigned it to Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
MDL No. 2989.

Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate
trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its
platform is primarily app-based aims to provide everyone with
access to the financial markets.

Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp.
began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the
excessive short positions in the company. This event received
significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for
the next GameStop, investor interest in certain stocks began to
rise, causing their stock prices to increase. Until January 28,
2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these
securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and belief,
many Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance on the
continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing the
customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so. However,
on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media
coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying these stocks.
Robinhood has announced it will allow limited transactions of these
securities starting on January 29, 2021. This action artificially
deflated the price of the effected stocks, harming all investors
who held the stock, to the benefit of those holding short
positions. Robinhood's interference in free trade left customers
and retail investors with only two choices, either sell immediately
at the rapidly falling price or hold and risk losing their entire
investment. Thompson used the Robinhood app to trade securities.

The panel contends that Southern District of Florida is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. There are ten
actions pending in Florida, four of which are in the Southern
District. With some of the events central to this litigation, in
particular, Robinhood Securities' decision to restrict trading on
the meme stocks, took place in Florida thus making the Southern
District of Florida a relatively convenient and accessible forum,
with the resources and the capacity to efficiently handle what may
be a large and complex litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 10, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ylhFGN

MDL 3010: 19 Antitrust Lawsuits Consolidated in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: DIGITAL ADVERTISING ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL No. 3010), the MDL Panel entered an order that 19
actions pending outside the Southern District of New York are
transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable P. Kevin Castel
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Panel further ordered that MDL No. 3010 is renamed In re:
Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation.

The Panel concludes that the Southern District of New York is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The record
indicates that the advertising and publishing industry around which
these actions revolve have a strong presence in New York, where the
Associated Newspapers action is pending. Two organizations
representing news entities and other online content providers filed
amicus briefs supporting centralization of the private actions in
the Southern District of New York, and plaintiffs in 14 actions
request this district in the event that centralization is granted
over their objection.

Facebook indicated at oral argument that the Southern District of
New York is an appropriate alternative to its preferred California
forum. Moreover, the record indicates that significant Google
operations concerning the issues in this litigation are located in
New York and that much of the common evidence is there as well.

The Panel believes that assignment of this MDL to an experienced
transferee judge is needed, considering the complexity of the
factual and legal issues, the anticipated breadth of third-party
discovery, and the parties' concerns over case management
efficiencies in litigation of this scope. Judge P. Kevin Castel, to
whom we assign this litigation, has presided over three MDLs, and
has the willingness and ability to manage this litigation
efficiently.

On Aug. 10, 2021, Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and
YouTube, LLC move under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize this
antitrust litigation in the Northern District of California. The
litigation currently consists of 19 actions pending in 16
districts.

The actions concern Google's alleged monopolization and suppression
of competition in online display advertising -- essentially, the
marketplace for the placement of digital display ads on websites
and mobile apps. The parties describe the principal participants in
online display advertising as advertisers seeking to place ads on
the internet, online content providers such as news sites offering
ad space alongside digital content, and high-speed electronic
trading venues called "exchanges" that advertisers and online
publishers use to manage the buying and selling of ad space.

The actions allege that Google runs the largest ad exchange and has
engaged in unlawful acts to suppress competition, causing injuries
to advertisers and publishers that participate in its exchange by
imposing supracompetitive pricing and depriving them of revenue.
Plaintiffs in all actions seek declaratory and equitable relief
under federal or state antitrust laws to stop the alleged conduct
and damages. The parties refer to the actions by the type of
plaintiff involved -- namely, the advertiser actions (three
actions), the publisher actions (sixteen actions), and the state
attorneys general action filed by 15 states in the Eastern District
of Texas("State of Texas" or "State Action").

Google's motion lists 20 actions for centralization. After the
motion was filed, one action (Organic Panaceas) was closed
following consolidation for all purposes with another action in the
Northern District of California. Since the filing of Google's
motion, the Panel also has been notified of one potential tag-along
action. The 15 state plaintiffs are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Utah. Two
other states -- Louisiana and South Carolina -- have moved to
intervene as additional plaintiffs.

The 19 Antitrust Lawsuits are captioned as:

   -- "SPX TOTAL BODY FITNESS LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:21-
      00801 (N.D. Cal.)"

   -- "RE: GOOGLE DIGITAL ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
      Case No. 5:20-03556 (N.D. Cal)"

   -- "RE: GOOGLE DIGITAL PUBLISHER ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
      Case No. 5:20—-08984 (N.D. Cal)"

   -- "COASTAL POINT LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-00554

      (D. Del.)"

   -- "CLIFFY CARE LANDSCAPING LLC v. FACEBOOK, INC., ET AL.,
      Case No. 1:21-00360 (D.D.C.)"

   -- "AIM MEDIA INDIANA OPERATING, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
      Case No, 1:21-00951 (S.D. Ind.)"

   -- "FLAG PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No.
      1:21-00965 (D. Md.)"

   -- "JOURNAL, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-00072
      (N.D. Miss.)"

   -- "EMMERICH NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET

      AL., Case No. 3:21-00274 (S.D. Miss.)

   -- "GALE FORCE MEDIA, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No,
2:21–
      09716 (D.N.J.)"

   -- "ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD., ET AL. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
      Case No. 1:21-03446 (S.D.N.Y.)"

   -- "AIM MEDIA MIDWEST OPERATING, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
      Case No. 2:21-01915 (S.D. Ohio)"

   -- "EAGLE PRINTING COMPANY v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No.
2:21-
      00518 (W.D. Pa.)"

   -- "STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL. v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-00957
      (E.D. Tex.)"

   -- "AIM MEDIA TEXAS OPERATING, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case
      No. 7:21-00150 (S.D. Tex.)"

   -- "CLARKSBURG PUBLISHING COMPANY v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
      Case No. 1:21-00051 (N.D.W.Va.)"

   -- "HD MEDIA COMPANY, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 3:21-
      00077 (S.D.W.Va.)"

   -- "ECENT CORPORATION v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:21-00251
      (S.D.W.Va.)"; and

   -- "BROWN COUNTY PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. GOOGLE
LLC,
      ET AL., Case No. 1:21-00498 (E.D. Wisc.)."[BN]

MERCK & CO: Zetia Related Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to the
sales of Zetia, a high blood cholesterol drug.

Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), Schering Corporation,
Schering-Plough Corporation, and MSP Singapore Company LLC are
defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in
2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other
state statutory and common law causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration. In August 2019, the district court adopted
in full the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge with
respect to the Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss on
non-arbitration issues, thereby granting in part and denying in
part Merck Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In addition, in June 2019, the representatives of the putative
direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint, and in August
2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In
December 2019, the district court granted the Merck Defendants'
motion to dismiss to the extent the motion sought dismissal of
claims for overcharges paid by entities that purchased generic
ezetimibe from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and dismissed any claims
for such overcharges.

In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. In
August 2020, the district court granted in part the direct
purchasers' motion for class certification and certified a class of
35 direct purchasers and, in November 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the Merck Defendants' motion
for permission to appeal the district court's order.

In August 2021, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's
class certification order and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the court's ruling.

Also, in August 2020, the magistrate judge recommended that the
court grant the motion for class certification filed by the
putative indirect purchaser class. The Merck Defendants objected to
this report and recommendation and are awaiting a decision from the
district court.

In August 2020, the Merck Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment and other motions, and plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment and other motions. Those motions are now
fully briefed, and the court has heard argument on certain of the
motions.

The court may hold additional hearings on the other motions. Trial
in this matter has been adjourned.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Suits Ongoing in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend two putative class action suits related to its initial
public offering ("IPO").

The Company is subject to two putative class action lawsuits
alleging federal securities law violations in connection with its
IPO, one in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona and one in
the U.S. District Court of Arizona.

These purported class actions were filed in March and April 2020
against the Company, certain current and former officers and
directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's IPO. The state
and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting
material information from, the company's IPO registration
statement.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


Mesa Air said, "In addition, we are subject to certain legal
actions which we consider routine to our business activities. As of
June 30, 2021, our management believed, that the ultimate outcomes
of the two putative class action lawsuits and such other routine
legal matters are not likely to have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, liquidity, or results of operations."

Mesa Air Group, Inc. operates as an airline company that provides
regional air services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
TheCompany also operates as an online retailer of apparel and
accessories. Mesa Air Group, Inc. was formerly known as Mesa Air
Shuttle, Inc. The Company was founded in 1982 and is based in
Phoenix, Arizona.


MICHIGAN STATE: NCLA Represents COVID-19 Survivors in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanna Norris is a supervisory Administrative Associate and Fiscal
Officer at Michigan State University (MSU). She has
naturally-acquired immunity to COVID-19 after recovering from the
virus late last year. However, the university has threatened
disciplinary action, even termination, if she and other employees
do not comply with the school's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination
policy. Ms. Norris is challenging Michigan State's unconstitutional
"COVID Directives" for the Fall 2021 semester. Today, the New Civil
Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group,
filed a class-action complaint and a preliminary injunction in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf
of Ms. Norris and similarly situated individuals at MSU.

MSU first announced its "COVID Directives" for the Fall 2021
semester via email on July 30, and shortly thereafter on its
website, alerting faculty, staff, and students that by August 31
they must have completed a full COVID-19 vaccine course or received
at least one dose of a two-dose series, unless they obtain a
religious or medical exemption. MSU's policy specifically excludes
natural immunity as a basis for a medical exemption.

Ms. Norris has fully recovered from COVID-19, and two recent
antibodies tests demonstrate her robust immunity to reinfection.
This status also means that Ms. Norris does not pose a threat to
anyone else in the Michigan State community. Her immunologist, Dr.
Hooman Noorchashm, has advised her that it is medically unnecessary
to undergo vaccination at this point. Yet, if Ms. Norris follows
her doctor's advice and elects not to take the vaccine, she faces
adverse disciplinary consequences from her employer. This policy
cannot reasonably be considered anything other than coercive.

The Supreme Court has recognized that a "forcible injection . . . .
into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial
interference with that person's liberty[.]" Given the antibodies
generated by her naturally-acquired immunity, MSU cannot claim a
compelling governmental interest in overriding Ms. Norris's
personal autonomy. Thus, forcing her either to be vaccinated or to
suffer adverse professional consequences violates her
constitutional rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The irrationality of MSU's policy is further highlighted by its
accepting several vaccines that are far inferior to natural
immunity, including the Janssen, Sinovac, and Sinopharm vaccines.
MSU's policy also constitutes an unconstitutional condition because
it premises Ms. Norris's enjoyment of some rights upon her
surrendering other rights.

Even though Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine (now marketed as "Comirnaty")
received full FDA approval, the three vaccines used widely in the
United States-the remaining Pfizer BioNTech doses, and the Moderna
and Janssen vaccines-remain under Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA). The EUA statute requires informed consent. Therefore, beyond
its constitutional defects, MSU's mandatory vaccination policy is
irreconcilable with the objectives of the federal statute governing
administration of medical products authorized for emergency use.
Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a state
or local law is preempted when it creates "an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
Congress."

NCLA asks the Court to enjoin enforcement of the policy on
constitutional and statutory grounds.

NCLA released the following statement:

"Along with all too many Americans, Ms. Norris is facing an
impossible dilemma: lose her job or receive a vaccine that is
medically unnecessary for her. Michigan State has placed her, and
others like her, in this position for no good reason, because she
has robust immunity as established by the overwhelming scientific
literature. Many public health authorities, the media, and the CDC
have resisted the conclusion that natural immunity exists and is as
protective or more so than the best available vaccines. Through Ms.
Norris's case, the integrity of the scientific process, which has
been severely compromised during the pandemic, can be vindicated
through the court system."
- Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

For more information visit the case page at
https://bit.ly/38EaQWp.

                          ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional
freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's
public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to
tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster
a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans'
fundamental rights. [GN]

NATI TRANCAS: Faces Mason ADA Suit in Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nati Trancas Malibu
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Portia Mason v. Nati Trancas
Malibu Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06550-PA-MRW (C.D. Calif.,
Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 12, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL UNION: Dubuisson Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Manette Dubuisson, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled George Gonzales, Manette
Dubuisson, and Alice Lacks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Union Fire Insurance of
Pittsburgh, P.A., et al., Case No. 15-cv-2259, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action complaint against
National Union Fire Insurance Company, American International
Group, Inc. (AIG), Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, Stonebridge
Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance
Company, Federal Insurance Company, Alliant Services, and Virginia
Surety Company, Inc., through the HealthExtras Program.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege that HealthExtras and the other Defendants sent New York
residents direct mail solicitations representing that the
HealthExtras program provides valuable protection in the form of a
$1,000,000 or $1,500,000 tax free cash payment if you're
permanently disabled due to an accident. Because HealthExtras is
not a licensed insurer or broker, it contracted with Defendants
National Union, Stonebridge, Transamerica, and Federal to
underwrite and issue the disability insurance coverage offered in
the HealthExtras Program and Defendant Virginia Surety to
underwrite and issue the Program's medical expense insurance
coverage. National Union, in turn, hired Defendant AIG to process
claims made under the HealthExtras Program that related to policies
issued by National Union. Defendant Alliant Services was the
insurance broker under the HealthExtras Program.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated July
26, 2021, granting Stonebridge's motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Gonzales v. National Union Fire
Insurance, Case No. 21-2051, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on August 24, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Manette Dubuisson, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly Situtated; and Alice Lacks, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly Situtated, are represented
by:

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2833 Crockett Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (214) 253-8300

Defendants-Appellees Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, FKA J.C.
Penney Life Insurance Company and Transamerica Financial Life
Insurance Company are represented by:

          David Brown, Esq.
          WINSTEAD PC
          500 Winstead Building
          2728 North Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 745-5234
          E-mail: dbrown@winstead.com

               - and -

          John Sandercock, Esq.
          LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
          100 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 341-4479
          E-mail: jsandercock@lskdnylaw.com

NCL CORP: Dismissal of Misleading COVID-19 Statements Suit Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the consolidated class
action suit related to the false and misleading statements made by
the company to the market and customers about COVID-19, has been
dismissed and the plaintiffs no longer have the right to appeal.

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.  

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.  

On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel.

The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and customers about COVID-19.   

The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.

On April 10, 2021, the case was dismissed and closed, and the
plaintiffs no longer have the right to appeal.

NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the
Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas
Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida.


NEW ALBERTSONS: Files Writ of Mandamus in Piazza FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants New Albertsons, Inc., et al., filed a petition for writ
of mandamus from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
Lisa Piazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW ALBERTSONS, INC.; JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.; and
AMERICAN DRUG STORES, LLC d/b/a JEWEL-OSCO, Case No. 1:20-cv-03187,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 9, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid
overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants violated the FLSA and IMWL by failing to pay its
"Assistant Store Directors" (ASDs) overtime compensation for the
hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because the
Defendants classify them as exempt from overtime, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours
per week while employed by Defendants in order to complete her job
duties. However, in accordance with the Defendants' policy,
pattern, and/or practice, she was misclassified as exempt from
overtime compensation and was not paid at the mandated rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as an ASD since
February 2019.

The appellate case is captioned as New Albertsons, Inc., et al. v.
Mary M. Rowland, Case No. 21-2577, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, filed on Aug. 25, 2021.

Mary M. Rowland is the Judge of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that fee or In
Forma Pauperis forms are due on September 8, 2021 for Petitioners
American Drug Stores, LLC, Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and New
Albertsons, Inc.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners NEW ALBERTSONS, INC., also known as New
Albertsons, L.P.; JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.; and AMERICAN DRUG
STORES, LLC, doing business as JEWEL-OSCO are represented by:

          Kerri Feczko, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520

Real Party-in-Interest LISA PIAZZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason J. Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com  

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-0000
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com  

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

NEW LINE: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Construction Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DIAZ and NELSON ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NEW LINE STRUCTURES INC., P.R.C.
CONTRACTING INC., and DARRYL S. PRICE, Case No. 1:21-cv-06898
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2021) alleges that Defendants have required
their construction workers, including Plaintiffs Diaz and Estrada,
to work between 40-80 hours per workweek while paying them at the
same hourly wage rate (i.e., "straight time") for all hours worked,
including those over 40.

Allegedly, at times during Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants
paid Plaintiffs below the statutory minimum wage rate. The
Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiffs spread-of-hours pay for
shifts that spanned over ten hours and failed to furnish them with
wage notices at the time of hiring and with compliant wage
statements at the end of every pay period, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated construction workers to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Federal Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as construction workers for the Defendants.

New Line specializes in pre-construction, construction management,
and demolition.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
          Gianfranco Cuadra, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com

NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Miner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITTANY MINER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWMAN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00694 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J. Philip
Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.

Plaintiff Miner brings the suit as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and as a
class action under Rule 23. The Defendant is a manufacturer of
automotive exhaust systems, frames, and trim products with
operations in Mansfield, Ohio, South Carolina, and Mexico. It
employs 687 individuals at its Mansfield, Ohio plant, 632 of whom
are hourly, non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff worked as a press
operator in Newman Technology's Mansfield facility from
approximately October 2013 to December 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act in several ways. First, she claims she and other
similarly situated employees were not paid for the time during
which they were required to don "protective sleeves, special
gloves, boots, safety glasses, and required shirts and pant
uniforms." She maintains that the time it took to don these items
was an "integral and indispensable part of their principal
activities."

Second, the Plaintiff claims that after employees donned their
personal protective equipment, they were required to walk to the
production floor. She claims she and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for this "postdonning walk time." (Id.)

Third, the Plaintiff claims that, at the end of their shifts, she
and other similarly situated employee had to walk from the
production floor to a changing area to remove their personal
protective equipment. She claims she was not paid for this
"predoffing walk time."

Fourth, the Plaintiff claims she and similarly situated employees
were not paid for the time spent doffing their personal protective
equipment at the end of their shifts, which was "an integral and
indispensable part" of their principal duties.

Finally, the Plaintiff claims she "worked fully or in part through
her uncompensated lunch period" and that she and similarly situated
employees "performed work for the Defendant before their regularly
scheduled shift time began." Based on these allegations, the
Plaintiff claims the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (Count One) and Ohio's overtime compensation statute (Count
Two).

The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant. Following
certification, the Plaintiff requests that the Court implements
notice and opt-in procedures. The Plaintiff estimates the class
consists of at least 100 employees.

The complaint seeks conditional certification of the following
class: "All former and current manufacturing employees of Newman
Technology, Inc.'s Ohio facility between March 29, 2018 and the
present." The Plaintiff asserts that the defined class is similarly
situated to her because they "were employed by Defendant as
manufacturing employees." She further asserts those similarly
situated employees were also not paid overtime compensation at a
rate of time and a half of their regular rate of pay when they
worked more than 40 hours each workweek.

The Defendant principally opposes the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification for three reasons. First, the Defendant
argues that the Plaintiff provided insufficient evidence in support
of her motion because she offered only "vague, generic declarations
devoid of any foundation" for the allegations. Second, it claims
the Plaintiff's proposed class is overbroad and that her claims are
unique to her and, therefore, improper for treatment as a
collective action. Finally, the Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's motion is premature and asks the Court either to allow
the parties to conduct limited discovery or hold a hearing on the
proposed class and the contents of the notice.

Analysis

The Plaintiff's request for conditional certification depends on
whether there is sufficient evidence, at this preliminary stage,
that she is similarly situated to other employees. The "similarly
situated" inquiry under the Fair Labor Standards Act is less
stringent than the class certification requirements under Rule 23.
The Act does not define "similarly situated," but the Sixth Circuit
has provided some guidance on what the term means. It holds
"plaintiffs are similarly situated when they suffer from a single,
FLSA-violating policy, and when proof of that policy or of conduct
in conformity with that policy proves a violation as to all the
plaintiffs." In addition, employees may be similarly situated if
their claims are "unified by common theories of defendants'
statutory violations, even if the proofs of these theories are
inevitably individualized and distinct."

I. Donning & Doffing

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated
employees were not paid for the time during which they were
required to don "protective sleeves, special gloves, boots, safety
glasses, and required shirts and pant uniforms." She also claims
she was not compensated for time spent doffing the required PPE.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff offers only "vague, generic
declarations" and "conclusory allegations" to support conditional
certification and that her declarants fail to "identify, with any
real specificity, the scope of their respective job duties or how
their purported preliminary activities are integral and
indispensable to those job duties" such that they give rise to
liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Based on the record before the Court, Judge Calabrese opines that
any donning and doffing violations likely vary based on job title
and duties. A variation in job duties or titles among potential
opt-in plaintiffs is often not relevant in determining if a
proposed class is similarly situated in the face of single policy
that violates the Act. In the case, however, the record does not
support that the single policy the Plaintiff claims -- taking her
facts and allegations as true -- has similar effects on potential
opt-in class members. For example, the record provides insufficient
information from which to determine if such a policy resulted in
similar violations across various jobs. Indeed, the declarations
from the three potential opt-in plaintiffs provide no description
of their job duties or responsibilities. Accordingly, the Judge
declines to grant conditional certification for the donning and
doffing class.

II. Other Uncompensated Work

The Plaintiff also argues that she and similarly situated employees
were not compensated for other work performed either before or
after their shifts began. For example, the Plaintiff claims she was
not compensated for time spent working during her 30-minute meal
break. With respect to work during meal periods, Mr. Strong, Ms.
Luna, and Mr. DeNigro, the other three hourly employees whose
declarations support the Plaintiff's motion, do not claim that they
were required to work during uncompensated meal breaks.

In this regard, Judge Calabrese holds that this claim appears to be
unique to the Plaintiff. Without making a merits determination or
weighing credibility of the evidence, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff's claims and the claims of the other hourly employees
requires an individualized analysis to determine whether a
particular FLSA violation took place. Further, the Plaintiff has
not shown that she and other hourly employees "suffer from a
single, FLSA-violating policy" with respect to the alleged unpaid
work employees performed.

At this stage, the Plaintiff's only proof of such a policy is the
nearly identical declarations of two other employees with different
job titles stating that "as a result of Newman Technology's
practices and policies, I was not compensated for all of the time I
worked, including all of the overtime hours I worked over 40 each
workweek." These conclusory statements are not sufficient evidence
of a company-wide policy of requiring employees to perform unpaid
work. Hence, the Plaintiff has not carried her burden, light though
it may be, of establishing that the Plaintiffs are similarly
situated.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Calabrese denied the Plaintiff's
request for conditional certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24h4ernw from Leagle.com.


OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE: May Face Class Suit Over Alleged Racism
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Terry at thelundreport.org reports that when Valyria Lewis
took a union job in Portland in early 2020, she had 12 years of
experience as a labor representative working with federal agencies
from the Transportation Safety Administration to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Defense. She'd
been in tough negotiations, dealt with difficult employers and
helped union-represented employees fight racism.

But Lewis said she has never faced an employer like Oregon Health &
Science University, which employs about 7,000 certified nursing
assistants, housekeepers, food service staff and others represented
by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
employees, where she works.

After she started in February 2020, Lewis waded through complaints,
grievances and terminations at OHSU. She alleges she discovered a
pattern of OHSU cracking down on employees who are racial and
ethnic minorities or from other countries by disciplining them more
harshly and firing them more often than white employees.

"OHSU (has) the worst I have ever encountered in management," Lewis
told The Lund Report.

Lewis said she saw lopsided treatment at arbitration hearings
involving terminated Black and Hispanic employees. She said OHSU
would fire a Black or brown employee for an offense while warning
white employees about the same behavior. She collected past
complaints and grievances and spoke to employees.

She met with former and current Black employees in a virtual town
hall, hosted by the union.

Their consensus was that OHSU is a racist organization, she said.

This is not a new complaint. Last year, Black employees wrote a
letter to the administration, accusing it of being an "enabler of
racism" following successive noose incidents. Some of the incidents
remain unresolved; in other cases managers knew the perpetrators.
But no one was fired as Black employees had wished.

OHSU also has been sued by employees alleging racism, but those
cases have not ended with a judgment against the organization.

AFSCME is now gathering testimony about racism from current and
former OHSU employees and plans to file a class action lawsuit
against OHSU.

Though the administration has repeatedly vowed to treat all
employees with respect, the organization says it is now going
through some deep soul-searching to improve its practices and rid
the workplace of racism, gender bias and sexual harassment. On its
website the company even published hiring and termination data from
the union showing that a disproportionate share of ethnic and
racial minorities had been fired or disciplined compared with white
employees.

"These numbers are painful but important," it said, commenting on
the data. "This is who we are and who we've been. We can and will
do better."

Earlier this year, following a sexual assault lawsuit against OHSU
that grabbed national headlines, OHSU hired former Attorney General
Eric Holder to investigate company practices involving complaints
of racism and sexual harassment.

OHSU has pledged to change its culture even as the investigation is
ongoing.

But Lewis is skeptical of OHSU's promises.

"OHSU has this habit of putting all of the good things in writing,"
Lewis said, referring to its promise to fight racism, "but never
putting them into action. They put them in writing just to say
'Look what we did.'"

Unblemished Record, Then Fired

Soon after Lewis started working at AFSCME, the union took up the
case of Gloria Richards.

Now 59, Richards was hired by OHSU in 1998 as a clerical worker.
She answered calls, collected patient information and scheduled
patients for doctors, among other things. She was always one of a
few Black employees on the team where she worked, whether it was in
the hematology unit or in a pool of peers.

For more than two decades, she didn't have a blemish on her record,
Lewis said. But last year she was fired along with another Black
employee. The coworker had asked Richards to serve as a monitor so
he could take an exam remotely for Portland Community College,
Richards agreed, but then backed out when he asked her to lie and
say she was a professor, Richards said. Richards also discovered
that he had been collecting doctors' signatures for an unknown
reason, she said. She told her supervisor about the situation, but
OHSU fired them both last year.

The union filed a grievance, accusing OHSU of denying Richards her
rights and the case went to arbitration. The decision is pending.

Lewis said she later dealt with another case involving a white
supervisor who was not fired after forging an employee's name,
which would have caused the employee to lose overtime. That case
made OHSU's treatment of Richards seem racist, Lewis said.

"(A) document Gloria was accused of falsifying wasn't even an OHSU
document, and they couldn't verify if she signed it. The document
the white employee signed was an OHSU document which directly
violated OHSU policy and Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division
overtime laws," Lewis said.

Lewis said she presented the two cases to human resources to
illustrate discriminatory discipline against a Black employee but
was brushed off.

OHSU declined to comment on the case, and it didn't respond to any
other questions related to this story.

As for Richards, she said she just wants to be rehired at her job,
which paid about $28 an hour.

"I want OHSU to restore my position and pay for the last 18 months
of traumatizing me," she said.

'Shocks And Surprises'

This past April, Lewis and Stacey Chamberlin, Oregon AFSCME Council
75's executive director, met with Dr. Danny Jacobs, OHSU's
president, who is Black, along with OHSU's general counsel, Alice
Cuprill Comas. She told them that in reviewing discipline and
termination records of AFSCME employees, she discovered that ethnic
and racial minorities were fired more often, disciplined more often
and terminated while on probation more often than white employees.
When the latter happens, the union can't contest the firing.

As an example of all those instances, Lewis cited 11 employees who
were fired, disciplined or who quit to avoid being terminated from
October 2018 through March 2021 and whose racial or ethnic
background was known. Six were Black, Latino, Asian or Hispanic --
more than 50%. Another two were from other countries, another group
that Lewis said OHSU targets.

Less than 20% of AFSCME members at OHSU are racial or ethnic
minorities, union documents show.

Lewis said she was blunt with Jacobs.

"What I told Dr. Jacobs to his face (is that) what you have is a
bunch of racists in your HR and management ranks and they're hiding
behind their Black president saying, look, we're not racist because
the president is Black," Lewis said. "He got plenty of shocks and
surprises in that meeting."

She said he responded by saying he had changed the chain of
command, making the head of human resources report directly to him.
But Lewis said that hasn't helped. She said she told him that "if
that person was ethical and honest, then everything I'm telling you
about today, you would already know before I showed up in this
meeting."

OHSU declined to comment on the meeting.

Three weeks afterwards, AFSCME sent a letter to OHSU, detailing
recent incidents that it said were indicative of deep-seated racism
at OHSU. One involved a white supervisor, identified as M.M, who
the union had complained about, the letter said, adding that she
got preferential treatment compared with an AFSCME-represented
worker. "The employer found it necessary to remove (an) Hispanic
male subordinate employee, alleged to have committed bullying and
harassment in the workplace, but chose to ignore white female
manager MM's documented and substantiated incidents of bullying and
harassment in the workplace, leaving her in a position to continue
her destructive and abusive behavior," the letter said.

The letter complained about an anti-racist memorandum of
understanding that OHSU proposed to the union in September 2020. It
requested the union's permission to immediately fire employees
who've committed racist acts and not go through progressive
disciplinary actions, as required in the union contract.

The letter questioned why OHSU would come up with such a policy
"when it had already imposed the same penalty on BIPOC employees,
absent permission/consent of the union."

Much of the letter detailed demands. They included:

Have the state Bureau of Labor and Industries and federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission audit affirmative action and
human resources disciplinary records because "OHSU cannot be
trusted to police itself."
Have BOLI and EEOC teach all employees about their rights. "OHSU's
AAEO process has proved defective and harmful to the members of our
bargaining unit," the letter said.
Fire every human resources and management official who has
committed discrimination or harassment at work.
Create a board to review past discipline and make mistreated
employees whole.
Terminate all managers and supervisors with a documented history of
bullying, harassment and discrimination.
Lewis said the union has yet to receive a response. Again, OHSU did
not respond to a request for comment by The Lund Report.

Changes Made

But there have been changes at OHSU. Laura Stadum is no longer head
of affirmative action at OHSU or its Title IX coordinator, a job
that entailed enforcing the anti-sex discrimination law. An
internal announcement said she had moved on to a position with the
Office of Information Privacy. Sources told The Lund Report that
soon after that was announced OHSU dissolved its Affirmative Action
and Equal Opportunity unit and asked all the workers there to
reapply for their jobs.

On its internal website, administrators said they were embarking on
a multi-year drive to collect employee data to weed out bias.

"Becoming an anti-racist organization that embraces all people and
cultures ia a priority for OHSU," the statement read. "If we're
willing, our collective differences allow us to understand patients
better, promote creativity in research, foster a better place to
learn and help with collaboration and innovation."

It said that human resources will develop an anti-racism plan to
diversify its workforce. According to AFSCME data from April, the
share of American Indians and Alaskan Natives at OHSU (0.6%) was
less than the proportion in Multnomah County (1.4%) and in Oregon
(1.8%). The percentage of Black employees (3.3%) was about half the
Black population in Multnomah County but higher than the Oregon
average (2.2%). OHSU had a much smaller share of Hispanic employees
(6.9%) compared with Multnomah County (12%) and Oregon (13.4%).

Asian employees make up a larger share of OHSU's workforce: 11.4%
compared with 8.1% of the residents in Multnomah County and 4.9% of
the population of Oregon.

OHSU's human resources said it will evaluate its employment related
practices over the "next several years."

"We'll monitor and share data so we're transparent about the impact
of these practices, and so you can hold us accountable for
progress."

Lewis was not heartened by the announcement, noting it was buried
on the internal website.

Many employees are waiting to see the result of the Holder
investigation. Multiple sources have told The Lund Report that
there's a general reluctance on campus to share mistreatment with
investigators out of fear of retaliation.

In trying to encourage people to come forward, Holder's team
recently posted an announcement on OHSU's website that said
investigators report to the human resources committee of the Board
of Directors -- not OHSU management. It said an outside consultant
will be conducting focus groups for OHSU employees to express their
views anonymously. The note said "no one at OHSU or Covington will
know the identity of community members who choose to participate."


Some Black employees were heartened by this post.

"This will help," one said. [GN]

OUREM IRON: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Fajardo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO FAJARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OUREM IRON WORKS, INC., and ARTHUR VIEIRA,
SR., as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06978
(S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendants as a result of its alleged egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around March
1997 until in or around February 2019 performing duties as a
fabricator, iron worker, installer, and other miscellaneous
duties.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of willfully failing to pay
him and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wag rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff also
asserts that the Defendants failed to provide them with wage
statements upon each payment of wages, and with a written notice of
their rate of pay, regular pay day, and such other information as
required by NYLL.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages against the
Defendants for himself and all other similarly situated employees,
as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Ourem Iron Works, Inc. fabricates iron and steel works. Arthur
Vieira, Sr. owns and operates Ourem Iron. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAPA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Andersen Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carice Ashley Andersen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Papa, Inc.; Papa Technologies, LLC, Case No.
Case 3:21-cv-06326 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Ms. Andersen brings this putative collective and class action
against the Defendants on behalf of herself individually and a
putative class of employees wrongfully misclassified as independent
contractors in the State of California by the Defendants and as a
collective action for all such employees misclassified by the
Defendants throughout the United States.

The Defendants are in the business of providing services to senior
citizens living in California and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the FLSA,
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders, all of which contribute to the Defendants' deliberate
unfair competition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Zachary Gershman, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                  Zachary@lebelaw.com

PARADIES SHOPS: $350K Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Wins Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEMONI BAILEY, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PARADIES SHOPS, LLC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-2610 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Approval of Collective Action Settlement
Agreement.

Background

Plaintiff Kemoni Bailey filed the action for unpaid overtime wages
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act O.R.C. Chapter 4111 ("OMFWSA"); and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). He alleged that the Defendant
failed to pay him and others like him for meal breaks that were
either never taken or that were interrupted. He alleged that the
failure to pay for these meals resulted in unpaid overtime in
violation of both the FLSA and Ohio law. The Plaintiff brought the
FLSA claim action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and the state law claims as a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 class action.

On July 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to engage in
mediation for the following group of employees ("Eligible
Settlement Participants"): "All current and former full-time hourly
employees, including hourly managers, of The Paradies Shops, LLC,
Paradies-Atlanta, LLC, Paradies-Atlanta II, LLC, Paradies-Columbus,
LLC, Paradies-DFW 2015 (F&B), LLC, Paradies Shops, L.L.C.,
Paradies-DTW, LLC, Paradies-Metro Ventures, LLC, Paradies-Hartford,
LLC f/k/a Paradies-Hartford, Inc., Paradies-TPA 2014, LLC who
worked during the period of May 22, 2017 to August 6, 2020 at the
following airports (not including locations of Hojeij Branded
Foods, LLC and its affiliates and Taste, Inc. d/b/a Vino Volo and
its affiliates): John Glenn Columbus International Airport,
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport,
Tampa International Airport, Austin-Bergstrom International
Airport, Bradley International Airport, and Asheville Regional
Airport."

On December 8, 2020, the parties mediated with mediator Jerry
Weiss. The parties were unable to reach a settlement on that date
but eventually reached a resolution on December 30, 2020. On that
same date, the parties filed a joint motion of settlement.

On January 29, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to approve
their settlement agreement. The settlement covers 3,187 Eligible
Settlement Participants. The total settlement amount is $350,000,
which represents almost two unpaid meal periods per pay period, a
service award to the named Plaintiff ($5,000), attorneys' fees
($116,666.67), and costs ($8,284.50). The Plaintiff agrees to
release his claims against the Defendant.

The parties have submitted their settlement agreement, their
proposed notice of settlement and claim form, and the declaration
of the Plaintiff's counsel, Shannon M. Draher.

Analysis

I. Certification of the Collective Class

The Defendant has consented to the conditional certification of the
following collective class for settlement purposes only under the
FLSA: "All current and former full-time hourly employees, including
hourly managers, of The Paradies Shops, LLC, Paradies-Atlanta, LLC,
Paradies-Atlanta II, LLC, Paradies-Columbus, LLC, Paradies-DFW 2015
(F&B), LLC, Paradies Shops, L.L.C., Paradies-DTW, LLC,
Paradies-Metro Ventures, LLC, Paradies-Hartford, LLC f/k/a
Paradies-Hartford, Inc., Paradies-TPA 2014, LLC who worked during
the period of May 22, 2017 to August 6, 2020 at the following
airports (not including locations of Hojeij Branded Foods, LLC and
its affiliates and Taste, Inc. d/b/a Vino Volo and its affiliates):
John Glenn Columbus International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson
International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport,
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Tampa International
Airport, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Bradley
International Airport, and Asheville Regional Airport."

Judge Preston certifies the collective class as identified by the
parties. Further, the Notice of Settlement is accurate, objective,
and informative, and provides the Eligible Settlement Participants
with the information necessary to make an informed decision
regarding their participation and is approved.

II. Settlement Approval

The Sixth Circuit has identified the following seven factors a
court may consider in determining whether the settlement of FLSA
claims is 'fair and reasonable:' (1) the risk of fraud or
collusion; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the
litigation; (3) the amount of discovery completed; (4) the
likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinion of class
counsel and representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class
members; and (7) public interest in the settlement." These factors
have also been applied by Courts in evaluating the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of an FLSA settlement.

The parties assert the following factors are relevant to the
Court's decision. They further contend parties that all relevant
factors weigh in favor of the Court approving this settlement.

Judge Preston agrees. First, there is no evidence of fraud or
collision in this case but only evidence of good-faith arms-length
negotiations. Second, the difficulty Plaintiffs would encounter in
proving their claims, the substantial litigation expenses, and a
possible delay in recovery arising from the appellate process
provide justifications for the Court's approval of the proposed
Settlement. Third, the parties engaged in substantial informal
discovery including the exchange of a relevant data sample,
communication between the parties, analysis of the relevant data
sample, and analysis of legal positions. Fourth, if the case is not
settled, it is possible there would be no recovery for the Eligible
Settlement Participants at all. Fifth, the Judge gives deference to
counsel's belief that the settlement is fair and reasonable
particularly in light of counsel's experience in this type of
litigation. Sixth, te parties' representations are consistent with
the language set forth in the Notice of Settlement and Claim Form
and Release. Finally, the public interest would be served by
settlement. Finally,

III. Reasonableness of the Settlement Distributions

The parties' Agreement allocates attorneys' fees for the
Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $116,666.67, one-third of the
total settlement amount. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement
provides the Plaintiffs' counsel $8,284.50 in expenses which
includes out-of-pocket expenses incurred in "preserving, proving,
presenting, and attempting to settle the claims asserted in the
action." The agreement also provides for a service award payment in
the amount of $5,000 to the Representative Plaintiff, in addition
to his individual payment.

Judge Preston holds that the requested service payment to the
Representative Plaintiff is appropriate. First, the fee-request,
seeking one-third of the total settlement agreement, is reasonable.
Second, the proposed $5,000 service award set forth in the
Settlement Agreement is within the range awarded by district courts
in the Circuit and in wage and hour actions in other
jurisdictions.

Conclusion

In sum, Judge Preston concludes that all of the relevant factors
weigh in favor of approving the settlement. He finds the settlement
reflects a reasonable compromise over issues and therefore is fair
and reasonable. Accordingly, the Judge will approve the settlement
agreement.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Settlement Approval is granted.
The Settlement Agreement is approved and the case is dismissed. The
distribution of the Notice of Settlement and Claim Form and Release
as outlined in the Settlement Agreement is approved and authorized.
The Motion for Conditional Class Certification is denied as moot.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over the matter for the purpose
of enforcing the Settlement Agreement, including the administration
of the settlement, the addition of Eligible Settlement Members
Claimants, and the distribution process. The Clerk is directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ysjjbk from Leagle.com.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal " or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PYPL)
from February 9, 2017 through July 28, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased PayPal securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit PayPal Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414
or rpatel@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and procedures; (ii)
as a result, PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and
procedures; (iii) PayPal's practices regarding payment of
interchange rates related to its debit cards were likewise
non-complaint with applicable laws and/or regulations; (iv)
accordingly, PayPal's revenues derived from its PayPal Credit and
debit card practices were in part the subject of improper conduct
and thus unsustainable; (v) all the foregoing the Company to an
increased risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement; and (v)
as result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 29, 2021, PayPal filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), reporting the
Company's financial and operating results for the second quarter of
2021. In its quarterly report, PayPal disclosed investigations by
the SEC and the CFPB. PayPal disclosed its receipt of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the CFPB related "to the marketing and
use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain merchants that
provide educational services;" and that the Company has "responded
to subpoenas and requests for information received from the [SEC]
relating to whether the interchange rates paid to bank that issues
debits cards bearing our licensed brands were consistent with
Regulation II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and to the reporting of marketing fees earned from the
Company's branded card program."

On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $18.81 per share, or 6.23%,
to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased PayPal Holdings securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/paypalgroupholdings-pypl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-432/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PYPL) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal publicly traded securities
between February 9, 2017 through July 28, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures; (2) the Company's
practices regarding payment of interchange rates related to its
debit cards were likewise non-complaint with applicable laws and/or
regulations; (3) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from
its PayPal Credit and debit card practices were in part the subject
of improper conduct and thus unsustainable; (4) all the foregoing
subjected the Company to an increased risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 29, 2021, the Company filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), reporting
the Company's financial and operating results for the second
quarter of 2021. In its quarterly report, the Company disclosed
investigations by the SEC and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau ("CFPB"). PayPal disclosed its receipt of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the CFPB related "to the marketing and
use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain merchants that
provide educational services" and that the Company has "responded
to subpoenas and requests for information received from the [SEC]
relating to whether the interchange rates paid to bank that issues
debits cards bearing our licensed brands were consistent with
Regulation II of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and to the reporting of marketing fees earned from the
Company's branded card program."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $18.81 per share, or
6.23%, to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of PayPal
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 19, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL) ("PayPal") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired PayPal securities between
February 9, 2017 and July 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
PayPal securities during the Class Period may, no later than
October 19, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/paypal-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=paypal

PayPal is a technology platform and digital payments company that
enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and
merchants worldwide. PayPal's services include PayPal Credit and
certain debit card services. In 2015, PayPal entered into a
Stipulated Final Judgment and Consent Order (the "Consent Order")
with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), settling
regulatory claims arising from PayPal Credit practices between 2011
and 2015. The Consent Order obligated PayPal to pay $15 million in
redress to consumers and a $10 million civil monetary penalty. The
Consent Order also required PayPal to make various changes to
PayPal Credit disclosures and related business practices.

The Class Period commences on February 9, 2017, the day after
PayPal filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), reporting the company's financial
and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31,
2016 (the "2016 10-K"). With respect to PayPal's disclosure
controls and procedures, the 2016 10-K represented that, "[b]ased
on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in the Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the [Exchange
Act]), [the defendants] have concluded that as of December 31,
2016, the end of the period covered by this report, our disclosure
controls and procedures were effective." The 2016 10-K purported to
advise investors of PayPal's regulatory obligations and attendant
risks, while simultaneously assuring investors of PayPal's
"compliant solutions" to addressing those risks. With respect to
the Consent Order, the 2016 10-K stated, in relevant part, that
"[w]e continue to cooperate and engage with the CFPB and work to
ensure compliance with the Consent Order, which "required PayPal to
make various changes to PayPal Credit disclosures and related
business practices."

Throughout the Class Period, defendants continued to assert the
effectiveness of PayPal's disclosure controls and procedures;
purported to advise investors on PayPal's regulatory obligations,
attendant risks, and "compliant solutions" to addressing those
risks; repeatedly asserted that it was remediating issues with its
PayPal Credit business practices in accordance with the Consent
Order; and downplayed regulations and related issues regarding
PayPal's interchange rates.

The truth emerged on July 29, 2021, when PayPal filed a quarterly
report on Form 10-Q, reporting PayPal's financial and operating
results for the second quarter of 2021. Therein, PayPal disclosed
investigations by the SEC and the CFPB. Specifically, PayPal
disclosed receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB
related "to the marketing and use of PayPal Credit in connection
with certain merchants that provide educational services"; and that
the company has "responded to subpoenas and requests for
information received from the [SEC] relating to whether the
interchange rates paid to the bank that issues debit cards bearing
our licensed brands were consistent with Regulation II of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to the reporting of
marketing fees earned from the Company's branded card program."

Following this news, PayPal's stock price fell $18.81 per share, or
6.23%, to close at $283.17 per share on July 29, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and
procedures; (2) as a result, PayPal's business practices with
respect to PayPal Credit remained non-compliant; (3) PayPal's
practices regarding payment of interchange rates related to its
debit cards were likewise non-compliant with applicable laws and/or
regulations; (4) accordingly, PayPal's revenues derived from its
PayPal Credit and debit card practices were in part the subject of
improper conduct and thus unsustainable; (5) all the foregoing
subjected PayPal to an increased risk of regulatory investigation
and enforcement; and (6) as a result, PayPal's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

PayPal investors may, no later than October 19, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Unlawfully Charges Sales Tax, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANNON SKILLERN and RYAN CORKEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-06808-ER (S.D.N.Y.,. Aug. 12, 2021) is a class action for
breach of contract and consumer protection act violations arising
from Peloton's unlawful charge of a "sales tax" to Massachusetts,
New York, and Virginia customers on their Peloton membership
subscriptions, despite the tax-exempt status of such digital goods
under state law.

Peloton is an exercise equipment and media company that allows its
customers to replicate the "boutique" studio-fitness experience at
home by streaming live and on-demand exercise classes. Funded in
2012 and launched in 2013, Peloton offers for sale an
internet-connected stationary bicycle (the "Peloton Bike" or
"Bike") and treadmill (the "Peloton Tread" or "Tread") that monthly
subscribers can use to participate remotely in exercise classes
that are streamed to the Bike and Tread's connected screens.

In addition, Peloton's class library includes live and on-demand
strength training, yoga, stretch, and meditation, which can be used
without the Bike and Tread.

Peloton describes itself as "the largest interactive fitness
platform in the world" and boasts over 5.4 million members as of
March 31, 2021. 2 Peloton generated $1.8 billion in revenue in 2020
and $1.26 billion as of the third-quarter 2021.

With a $39/month All-Access Membership subscription, users can
access Peloton's full catalogue of classes along with real-time
performance metric tracking when used with the Bike or Tread. 4
Peloton also offers an individual-user Digital Membership (together
with the All-Access Membership, "Peloton Membership") for
$12.99/month through the Peloton App, which grants subscribers with
a compatible device access to Peloton's live and on-demand class
catalogue. Subscription to Peloton's All Access Membership is
required with the purchase of the Peloton Bike and Peloton Tread.

By purchasing or using a Peloton Membership, subscribers agree to
Peloton's Membership Terms, which supplement and comprise part of
Peloton's Terms of Service. The Membership Terms provide that
subscribers "agree to pay the monthly fee specified" at purchase
"plus any applicable taxes and other charges." 5 Subscribers also
provide a payment method that is saved and charged on a recurring,
monthly basis at the beginning of the monthly membership cycle. The
Membership Terms further provide that subscribers authorize Peloton
to use that provided payment method "to pay any amounts described
[in the Membership Terms] without requiring a signed receipt."

In January and December 2019, Plaintiffs Brannon Skillern and Ryan
Corken, respectively, purchased the Peloton Bike and subscribed to
Peloton's All-Access Membership subscription for $39/month. Yet,
Peloton charged them both an over-6% "sales tax" on their
subscriptions every month through December 2020 even though no such
tax was actually owed under state law, resulting in substantial
overcharges in violation of Peloton's Membership Terms and state
law, says the suit.

Peloton's alleged unlawful practice has harmed plaintiffs and all
Class members in precisely the same way. Indeed, on a standard and
uniform basis, Peloton charges users in several U.S. states a sales
tax on their monthly subscription even though digital products in
many of those states are not taxable, in violation of Peloton's
Membership Terms and state law.

Furthermore, Peloton willfully and knowingly overcharged its
subscribers a false and unlawful sales tax on their Peloton
Memberships. When customers complained or inquired about the
impermissible tax charge, Peloton assured them that its business
practices comply with state and local tax requirements.

Worse, Peloton admittedly has not remitted the unlawfully collected
"sales tax" to state authorities, recouping these overcharges in an
effort to maximize profits at their subscribers' expense and under
the guise of a state-imposed tax, added the suit.

Peloton eventually changed its taxation practices in at least
Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia, effective January 1, 2021,
despite knowing about the impropriety of its overcharge misconduct
before that date. Peloton has not reimbursed plaintiffs or Class
members for the unlawful taxes it collected before January 1,
2021.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated to challenge
Peloton's breach of the membership contract and its willful and
knowing unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent overcharging practices.
Plaintiffs seek all available compensatory, statutory, and punitive
damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Mr. Skillern resides in Vienna, Virginia and is a citizen of
Virginia. Skillern has owned a Peloton Bike and subscribed to
Peloton's All-Access Membership since January 2019, when she
purchased the Bike while living in Brooklyn, New York. Skillern has
lived in Vienna, Virginia since April 1, 2020.

Mr. Corken resides in Reading, Massachusetts, and is a citizen of
Massachusetts. Corken has owned a Peloton Bike and subscribed to
Peloton's All-Access Membership since December 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth Ard, Esq
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6023
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  jcuevas@susmangodfrey.com

PENUMBRA INC: California Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Penumbra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiff in the
putative securities class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, voluntarily
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On January 15, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company and its CEO, Adam Elsesser, and
Executive Vice President, Global Marketing and Public Relations,
Gita Barry, on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, asserting claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class that would comprise all individuals who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 3,
2020 and December 15, 2020.

The complaint alleged securities law violations based on allegedly
misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the
Company’s JET 7 Xtra Flex product.

On March 16, 2021, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.

Penumbra, Inc. is a global healthcare company focused on innovative
therapies. The company designs, develops, manufactures and markets
novel products and have a broad portfolio that addresses
challenging medical conditions in markets with significant unmet
need. The company is based in Alameda, california.


POPULAR INC: Asks Court to Tag Summary Ruling Bid in Diaz Unopposed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company and Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) filed a motion requesting the Court
handling the Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al. suit, to deem
Popular, Inc. and BPPR's motion for summary judgment as unopposed.

Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC have been named defendants in a class action
complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint originally sought damages and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies.

They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an
estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance
Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive
relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from
paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering
them to pay those fees directly to the insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant
Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery. Each of the Puerto Rico Court of
Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied the Popular
Defendants' request to review the lower court's denial of the
motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint and, in January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October
2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the
class, after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari
petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the
class certification, which the Court declined to entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the Popular
Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.

In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it
to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a
mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term. The Court
approved in September 2020 the notice to the class, which is yet to
be published.

On May 7, 2021, the Popular Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment with respect to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment theory of
liability, reserving the right to file an additional motion for
summary judgment regarding damages should the court deny the
Popular Defendant's pending motion to exclude an economic expert
recently designated by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment on July 6, 2021
and the Popular Defendants replied on July 28, 2021.

On May 7, 2021, Popular, Inc. and BPPR also filed a separate motion
for summary judgment alleging that, even taking as true and correct
Plaintiffs' theory of liability, Popular, Inc. and BPPR are not
liable to Plaintiffs since they do not receive—and are legally
prohibited from receiving insurance commissions.

Plaintiffs failed to respond to such motion, and on July 9, 2021,
Popular, Inc. and BPPR filed a motion requesting the Court to deem
Popular, Inc. and BPPR's motion for summary judgment as unopposed.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Golden v.
Popular, Inc., is pending.

Popular has been also named as a defendant on a putative class
action complaint captioned Golden v. Popular, Inc. filed in March
2020 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New
York consumer protection law due to Popular's purported practice of
charging OD Fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs' theory, do
not overdraw the account.

Plaintiff describes Popular's purported practice of charging OD
Fees as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative
Transactions" ("APPSN") and states that Popular assesses overdraft
(OD) Fees over authorized transactions for which sufficient funds
are held for settlement.

In August 2020, Popular filed a Motion to Dismiss on several
grounds, including failure to state a claim against Popular, Inc.
and improper venue.

In October 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York and, simultaneously, filed an identical complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands against
Popular, Inc., Popular Bank and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
(BPPR).

In November 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
against Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank following a Motion to
Dismiss filed on behalf of such entities which argued failure to
state a claim and lack of minimum contacts of such parties with the
U.S.V.I. district court jurisdiction.

BPPR, the only defendant remaining in the case, was served with
process in November 2020 and filed a Motion to Dismiss in January
2021 which is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Discovery in Soto-Melendez Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Soto-Melendez v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico.

In February 2020, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was served
with a putative class action complaint captioned Soto-Melendez v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment due to BPPR's
purported practice of (a) assessing more than one insufficient
funds fee ("NSF Fees") on the same "item" or transaction and (b)
charging both NSF Fees and overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on the same
item or transaction, and is filed on behalf of all persons who
during the applicable statute of limitations period were charged
NSF Fees and/or OD Fees pursuant to these purported practices. In
April 2020, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On April 21, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part BPPR's motion to dismiss; the unjust enrichment
claim was dismissed, whereas the breach of contract and covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claims survived the motion. Discovery
is ongoing.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Dismissal of Maura Putative Class Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., is pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco
Popular, et al. on behalf of residential customers of the defendant
banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures
and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers.

Plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel,
all in violation of the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA"), the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other
consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not
include a specific amount of damages in their complaint.

After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint (as did most co-defendants, separately).

BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which
the Court granted in September 2018.

In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April 2019, which
Popular timely opposed.

In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.

In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December
2019. In January 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Plaintiffs filed their appeal brief in July 2020, Appellees filed
their brief in September 2020, and Appellants filed their reply
brief in January 2021.

The appeal is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


PRECIGEN INC: Abailla Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Precigen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated purported shareholder class action suit
entitled, Abailla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al.

In October 2020, several purported shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.

The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers.

The plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's
administrative order described above but challenge disclosures
about the methane bioconversion platform ("MBP") program through
September 2020, i.e., the date of the SEC administrative order.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, and an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

In April 2021, the court granted an order consolidating the claims
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the case,
captioned Abailla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al.

In December 2020, a derivative shareholder action, captioned Edward
D. Wright, derivatively on behalf of Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon
Corp. v. Alvarez et al, was filed in the Circuit Court for Fairfax
County in Virginia on behalf of Precigen, Inc. asserting similar
claims under state law against Precigen's current directors and
certain officers.

The plaintiff seeks damages, forfeiture of benefits received by
defendants, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.

Precigen, Inc. is a dedicated discovery and clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company advancing the next generation of gene and
cell therapies with the overall goal of improving outcomes for
patients with significant unmet medical needs. The company is based
in Germantown, Maryland.


PROFESSIONAL PROBATION: Summary Judgment in Malone Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMANTHA MALONE, MARK BLEDSOE, TRAVIS MOSELY,
Plaintiffs, HOLLY KIMMONS, ANDY FENNELL, On behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PROFESSIONAL
PROBATION SERVICES, INC., A business entity wholly owned subsidiary
of Universal Health Services Inc., Defendant-Appellee, CITY OF
DECATUR, ALABAMA, A Municipality, EMILY BAGGETT, City of Decatur
Prosecutor, in her individual and official capacity, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-14227, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the
summary judgment in favor of Professional Probation Services.

Plaintiffs Kimmons, Fennell, and three other plaintiffs -- all
former municipal probationers -- filed a putative class action
against Probation Services, its parent company, the City of
Decatur, Alabama, and two of its employees for allegedly exacting
excessive fines and fees when administering sentences of probation.
The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleged violations of
federal constitutional rights, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and of the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c)-(d), and torts under state law. Kimmons and Fennell
challenge only the summary judgment against their state claim of
abuse of process.

The second amended complaint filed by the former probationers
alleged that the City violated their rights to due process and
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and that the City and its employees falsely imprisoned
them and violated their rights to be free of unreasonable searches
and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and to counsel under the
Sixth Amendment. They also complained that Protection Services and
its parent company violated the federal racketeering act and that
Protection Services committed a state tort by abusing the process
of probation.

The former probationers alleged that, when an offender could not
pay the fine for a minor offense, the Decatur municipal court
imposed a sentence, which it then suspended and released the
offender on probation under the supervision of Probation Services.
They alleged that, if the offender failed to pay a prearranged
installment of the court costs or the $35 supervision fee to
Probation Services, it notified the municipal court, which
initiated revocation proceedings, extended the offender's term of
probation, and multiplied the fines and fees due. The former
probationers also alleged that the defendants threatened them,
"failed to give them full information about their due process
rights and other rights, and fail[ed] to provide a process for
evaluating or presenting indigency to the court when they were
unable to pay."

The City, its employees, Probation Services, and its parent company
moved to dismiss the complaint, which the district court granted in
part and denied in part. The district court dismissed all claims
against both City employees and the claim of racketeering against
Probation Services and its parent company. The district court ruled
that Kimmons and the others had stated claims against the City for
violating their federal constitutional rights and for false
imprisonment and against Probation Services for abuse of process.
Later, the Plaintiffs moved to dismiss all claims against the City
with prejudice, and the district court granted the motion.

Probation Services moved for summary judgment. It argued that
Malone's, Bledsoe's, and Moseley's claims for abuse of process were
barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal
injuries, and that no material dispute existed about whether it had
abused the process of probation. Probation Services argued that the
former probationers submitted no evidence that it had issued or had
caused the municipal court to issue legal process for failure to
pay. The company also argued that it had not acted with malice
because any threat of arrest its staff had made related to a lack
of compliance with the condition of probation to timely pay
court-imposed costs.

Probation Services attached to its motion a copy of its contract
with the City and a declaration from corporate counsel. It also
submitted copies of Kimmons's and Fennell's depositions. The two
former probationers testified that the municipal court imposed all
fines and fees in their cases and warned them of the possibility of
imprisonment for nonpayment of court-imposed costs.

Plaintiffs Kimmons and Fennell argued that the company "charged all
persons it supervised monthly fees of $35 that were not authorized
by state law and at times were in excess of the amount specified in
the Contract." They also argued that the company "threatened
probationers with probation revocation and incarceration if they
did not pay the fees associated with their supervised release."

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Probation
Services. It ruled that Malone's, Bledsoe's, and Moseley's claims
were untimely. It also ruled that "neither Kimmons nor Fennell
presented any evidence to show that lawful process was issued for
an ulterior purpose," as required to prove a claim of abuse of
process. The district court found that "all harassment alleged by
Kimmons and Fennell had been in furtherance of the Municipal
Court's Sentencing Orders" and they presented "no evidence that any
alleged threats were ever made for any reason other than ensuring
their compliance with the terms of their sentencing orders."

Only Kimmons and Fennell appeal. The Eleventh Circuit reviews de
novo the summary judgment against their complaint of abuse of
process. Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.

To prove an abuse of process, Kimmons and Fennell had to "offer
substantial evidence indicating: (1) the existence of an ulterior
purpose; 2) a wrongful use of process, and 3) malice." And they had
"to prove all three elements" to survive summary judgment. An
ulterior purpose "usually takes the form of coercion to obtain a
collateral advantage" that is akin to extortion. The ulterior
motive must culminate in an actual abuse of the process by
perverting it to a use to obtain a result which the process was not
intended by law to effect.

The Eleventh Circuit holds that Kimmons and Fennell presented no
evidence that Probation Service acted with an ulterior motive. The
record established that Probation Service officers performed their
assigned task of collecting court-ordered fines and fees and
conveyed truthful information to probationers that they were
required timely to make payments and that nonpayment could result
in them having their term of probation extended or being arrested.

Even if, as Kimmons and Fennell maintained, their probation
officers' threats were made with bad intentions, the Eleventh
Circuit finds that it was insufficient to establish they acted with
an ulterior motive when collecting the fines and fees imposed by
the municipal court. Because the probation officers' "action was
confined to its regular and legitimate function of ensuring that
probationers complied with the conditions of their probation, there
was no abuse" of process. So the district court did not err by
entering summary judgment in favor of Probation Services and
against Kimmons and Fennell's complaint of abuse of process.

For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the summary
judgment in favor of Probation Services.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t4ffesjy from Leagle.com.


PROFLAME INC: Faces Pernal Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER PERNAL, RYAN GORDON, ROBERT ELY, TIMOTHY TANSKI, JEFFREY
PINKOSH, and JOHNATHAN FREMGEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PROFLAME INC., JOHN HUMPHRY, and
AMELIA A. HUMPHRY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04526 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021)
is a class action seeking to remedy violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs seek, for themselves and similarly situated
employees, declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to
29 U.S.C. sections 216(b) and 217, and other applicable federal
law.

The Defendants together operate a company -- operating under the
name Proflame Propane -- that sells propane to residential and
commercial customers.

The Defendants employed each of the Plaintiffs, and all others
similarly situated including the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, as
drivers to deliver propane to their customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111
          E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com

RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Faces Class Action Challenging Pre-Trial Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
kpvi.com reports that Washington D.C. firm filed suit earlier this
month challenging Ravalli County's use of pre-trial supervision
fees for people who can't afford to pay them.

The suit claims county law enforcement and courts are operating "a
wealth-based discrimination scheme, requiring pre-trial arrestees -
who have not been found guilty of any crime - to pay exorbitant
fees to get out and stay out of jail, without considering ability
to pay."

The suit focuses on fees that people charged with a crime are
required to pay for supervision, including the costs of GPS ankle
monitors, breathalyzers and drug tests. Those conditions of release
have been a part of the court system in Ravalli County for years.

If people are unable to pay the fees, the suit said they can end
back up in jail.

The firm Equal Justice Under Law filed an amended version of the
lawsuit on Aug. 17 on behalf of Teri Lea Evenson-Childs, a homeless
person, and Daniel O'Toole of Hamilton and "on behalf of all other
similarly situated."

Initially, the firm named the Ravalli County Sheriff's Office in
the suit. In the amended version, it added Ravalli County's justice
and district courts.

The suit said Evenson-Childs is indigent, has a disability and has
been struggling with homelessness since her criminal case began a
year ago when she was arrested on a domestic violence charge.

The judge set bond at $30,000 in that case and imposed pre-trial
supervision and alcohol monitoring as release conditions.
Evenson-Childs hired a private bail bond company to post bail for
her. She paid a non-refundable deposit of $3,500 using her tax
refund. Without the tax refund, the suit said she would not have
had the money to pay the bail bond company.

Before being released from jail, Evenson-Childs was required to pay
the first month of fees for an alcohol monitoring device.

The suit said that was the first that she learned she would be
charged pre-trial fees. Evenson-Childs was released after her
daughter paid the fees.

As part of her conditional release, she was required to blow into
an alcohol detection device three times a day. Evenson-Childs is
charged $55 a month in supervision fees and $270 a month in alcohol
monitoring fees.

While she has been able to secure part-time temporary jobs, the
suit claimed the $325 a month in pre-trial fees prevents her from
securing stable housing. Without stable housing, she can't secure
stable employment.

She has been paying the fees for over a year as her case remains in
pre-trial status, the lawsuit said.

O'Toole is also indigent after cycling in and out of jail for
years. The suit said O'Toole is unable to find and maintain
employment as a result. O'Toole has three recent criminal cases in
Ravalli County, including a felony charge for cutting the strap off
an alcohol ankle monitor.

In each case, the suit said O'Toole has been charged hundreds of
dollars in pre-trial fees, "which has only deepened the longer he
is under pre-trial supervision." O'Toole has been jailed for an
alleged missed check-in and separately for a positive drug test,
both conditions of release from jail.

The suit charges that by imposing "onerous conditions" under the
pre-release supervision system before O'Toole has been convicted in
any case, the county has pulled O'Toole "further into the criminal
system and into poverty."

Since the civil case is ongoing, county officials were unable to
comment. The county will be represented by the Montana Association
of County attorneys.

Both parties are required to file a preliminary pretrial statement
on or before Nov. 8 with the U.S. District Court in Missoula. [GN]

READING INTERNATIONAL: Settlements Reached in Brown & Wagner Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that following a mediation,
the parties agreed to settle the claims set forth in the remaining
lawsuits entitled, Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading
Cinemas et al. Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Kern, Case No. BCV-19-1000390 and Peter M. Wagner, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
vs. Reading International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc.
and Does 1 through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL

The company is currently a defendant in certain California
employment matters which include substantially overlapping wage and
hour claims relating to the company's  California cinema
operations.

Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
Case No. BCV-19-1000390 ("Brown v. RC," and the "Brown Class Action
Complaint") was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.  

Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual, vs. Consolidated
Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, Case NO.
37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL ("Wagner v. CEI," and the "Wagner
Individual Complaint") was filed as a discrimination and
retaliation lawsuit in June 2019.  

The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the
company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code Section 2698,
et seq) (the "Wagner PAGA Claim") purportedly asserting in a
representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute,
overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the
Brown Class Action Complaint.

On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering
basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class
Action Complaint, and titled Peter M. Wagner, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading
International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the "Wagner Class
Action" and the "Wagner Class Action Complaint").  

Following mediation, the Wagner Individual Complaint was settled,
and final judgment entered on February 10, 2021, at what the
company believes to have been its nuisance value.

The remaining lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating
to alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations.  

On July 13, 2021, following a mediation, the parties agreed to
settle the claims set forth in the remaining lawsuits
(specifically, the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner PAGA
Claim and the Wagner Class Action Complaint) for the Company's
payment of $4.0 million (the "Settlement Amount").   

The settlement is contingent upon the execution and delivery of a
final settlement agreement and final court approval.   

The Settlement Amount is to be paid in two installments, one-half
within 30 days of final court approval and the balance nine-months
thereafter.  

A court hearing on the settlement is not expected prior to the
fourth quarter of 2021.   

Reading International said, "We have accrued the Settlement Amount
as a second quarter cinema segment administrative expense."

Reading International, Inc., is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based
in Culver City, California.


REALREAL INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Marin County Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Company reached an
agreement in principle to settle the shareholder class action filed
in the Marin County.

On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO)
in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
San Mateo.

Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.

The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.  

On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  

The plaintiffs in the San Francisco Superior Court case have filed
a request for dismissal.

Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019. On February 12, 2020, a lead
plaintiff was appointed in the federal action and an Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31, 2020.

Defendants' filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the state
court action on March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in favor of the federal action on May 1, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the
state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and motion
to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action. A motion
to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Complaint in the federal
court action was filed on May 15, 2020.

On March 31, 2021, the court entered an order on the motion to
dismiss, dismissing the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims and
some of the claims alleged under the Securities Act of 1933.

The court provided plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the
complaint and, on April 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in federal court.

The state court complaint and the Second Amended Complaint in
federal court each allege claims under the Securities Act on behalf
of a purported class of shareholders who acquired the company's
stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for
the company's IPO. The federal complaint also alleges claims under
the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who
purchased our stock from June 27, 2019 through November 20, 2019.

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 10, 2020
and December 7, 2020, purported shareholders filed putative
derivative actions in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The derivative complaints allege factual
allegations largely tracking the lawsuits. The two derivative cases
have been consolidated and the consolidated case has been stayed.

On July 27, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle this shareholder class action.

The agreement in principle is subject to formalizing the final
terms of the settlement in a settlement stipulation, which would
then be subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

RealReal said, "The financial terms of the agreement in principle
provide that the Company will pay $11.0 million within thirty (30)
days of the later of preliminary approval of the settlement or
plaintiff's counsel providing payment instructions. In connection
with the agreement in principle, the Company recorded approximately
$11.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2021 under our
Operating expenses as a Legal settlement. The Company intends to
pay for the settlement with available resources."

The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit initiated by Toshif Patel.

On October 15, 2020, Toshif Patel filed a complaint for alleged
violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's common
stock between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of its
MOXIe Part 2 study results to support a single study marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the United
States.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages and interest, costs, and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  

Reata said, "The Company cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical
company. The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and
commercializing product candidates that modulate the activity of
key regulatory proteins involved in the biology of mitochondrial
function, oxidative stress, and inflammation to address the unmet
medical needs of patients with various life-threatening diseases.
The company is based in Plano, Texas.


RECRO PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Related to IV Meloxicam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the securities class action suit related to the New Drug
Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit 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. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the
NDA for IV meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same
relief but included new allegations and named additional officers
as defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was
completed on the motion to dismiss.

In response to questions from the Court, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs regarding the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion
to dismiss was granted by the Court without prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16,
2020, the Company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss.

On March 1, 2021, the Court denied the Company's second motion to
dismiss.

On June 21, 2021, the Defendants filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the second amended complaint. The parties are in the
beginning stages of discovery.

A Preliminary Pretrial Conference before the Court occurred on
August 3, 2021.

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

RED ONE: Pichasaca Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Pichasaca, on behalf of himself all other persons similarly
situated v. Red One Plaza LLC d/b/a Lucy's Cantina Royale, LDV
Hospitality Holdings, LLC, LDV Hospitality Management, LLC, and LDV
RG Lucy, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06765 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021)
seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Pichasaca asserts that he is entitled to compensation for wages
paid at less than the statutory minimum wage; back wages for
overtime work for which the defendants willfully failed to pay
overtime premium pay as required by the state law.

Plaintiff Jose Pichasaca is an adult individual residing in the
Bronx, New York.

The Defendants operate restaurants in the U.S. and abroad,
including Lucy’s Cantina Royale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Thompson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAYLOR THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02230, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on August 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-23026-CMA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged issuance of untrue
statements or omissions of material fact in connection with the
purchase or sale of covered securities.

Robinhood Financial LLC is an institutional brokerage company,
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Naeun Rim, Esq.
         Grace W. Kang, Esq.
         BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG
& RHOW, P.C.
         1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
         Telephone: (310) 201-2100
         Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
         E-mail: nrim@birdmarella.com
                 gkang@birdmarella.com

SAN FRANCISCO USD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Student A ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STUDENT A, by and through Parent A, her Guardian;
STUDENT B, by and through Parent B, his Guardian; STUDENT C, by and
through Parent C, his Guardian; STUDENT D, by and through Parent D,
her Guardian; STUDENT E, by and through Parent E, her Guardian, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;
VINCENT MATTHEWS, In his Official Capacity as the Superintendent
for the San Francisco Unified School District,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15386 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.

Background

Most Americans, at least those who have had children in our public
schools in the last 50 years, are familiar with the landmark
legislation of the 1970s ensuring that our schools educate those of
our children who have disabilities. Titled the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., and
known simply as the IDEA, it has generated litigation in many
areas, not the least of which concerns when plaintiffs must exhaust
administrative remedies before seeking broader relief in federal
court.

In the case, the Plaintiffs claim the San Francisco Unified School
District (SFUSD) is failing its responsibilities to students under
the IDEA by not timely identifying and evaluating students with
disabilities, and, after identifying them, by providing them with
insufficiently individualized, "cookie-cutter" accommodations and
services.

The Plaintiffs are five current or former SFUSD students who have
been diagnosed with dyslexia, autism, or speech and language
impairments. In their class-action complaint, the Plaintiffs
alleged that SFUSD has systematically failed and refused to fulfill
its obligations to (1) timely identify and evaluate students who
qualify for special education services, (2) offer appropriately
tailored special education services to students with disabilities,
and (3) provide sufficient resources for its special education
program. None of the Plaintiffs have initiated either the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) or the complaint resolution
proceeding (CRP) process.

On motion by the school district, the district court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. The district court concluded that the Plaintiffs had not
alleged facts sufficient to support their contention that an
exception to the exhaustion requirement applied to their claims.
The district court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs did so, asserting in their amended complaint that,
since they sought systemic, district-wide reforms that the OAH
process could not achieve, exhausting the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) process would be useless. The Plaintiffs also cited
data to show unacceptably poor performance from SFUSD students with
disabilities. The Defendants moved to dismiss.

The district court again granted dismissal for failure to exhaust,
this time with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint did not
challenge policies or practices of general applicability as
contrary to law, the district court wrote, but rather challenged
what amounted to "failures in practice" by SFUSD. The district
court observed that the Plaintiffs "repeatedly characterized their
claims as challenging 'systemic' problems and seeking 'structural'
relief." But such characterizations could not excuse failure to
exhaust, the district court concluded, in the absence of "facts
showing that exhaustion should be excused or that the reform they
seek is anything other than increased funding and greater adherence
to existing policies at SFUSD." The district court also noted that
the CRP process was an option, and one that "appeared to be a much
better fit for satisfying the exhaustion requirement," given the
Plaintiffs' claims and requested relief.

The district court concluded by summarizing the purposes that
exhaustion would serve in the case: Simply put, in light of IDEA's
exhaustion requirement, the Plaintiffs need to do something to make
their case and their broad allegations more concrete, and in the
process develop a record containing administrative expertise as
well as responses from the District or State to allow a court to
effectively move forward on exhausted claims.

The Plaintiffs appealed. They argue on appeal that exhaustion was
not required because they are challenging district-wide policies
that only a court can remedy. They contend that there would be no
point in going to the state administrative agencies, because they
seek to change the SFUSD special educational system. The Ninth
Circuit has at times used the words "systemic" and "structural" to
describe challenges where exhaustion is not required.

It finds that the Plaintiffs are not challenging the integrity of
the state's administrative procedures; they simply seek to bypass
them. It says, although the Plaintiffs contend they are seeking a
restructuring of the education system, their complaint neither
identifies the policies or practices that need to be addressed nor
explains why the pursuit of administrative remedies could not
correct their deficiencies. The Ninth Circuit agrees with the
district court that merely characterizing a school district's
problems as "systemic" and the relief sought as "structural" does
not provide the facts necessary to show that the allegedly needed
reform is, as the court trenchantly put it, "anything other than
increased funding and greater adherence to existing policies." An
administrative record could shed needed light on what is going
right, what is going wrong, and remedies for the latter.

To be sure, the Ninth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs do contend
that their claims identify three specific unlawful policies or
practices. But what they amount to are assertions of delay in
providing services, denial of sufficiently individualized services,
and arbitrary limits on services. These are allegations of bad
results, not descriptions of unlawful policies or practices. The
Plaintiffs' claims are accompanied by general statistics
documenting poor performance by students with disabilities. While
these results, if true, are all unfortunate, they are not policies
or practices that a court could grasp, much less change, without
the benefit of any factually developed administrative record.

As the Ninth Circuit said in Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. District,
967 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1992), exhaustion "allows for the exercise
of discretion and educational expertise by state and local
agencies," "furthers development of a complete factual record, and
promotes judicial efficiency." All of these important interests
could be furthered by exhaustion in the case.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit opines that there is another important
interest that exhaustion would serve in the case, since the case
represents a challenge to the practices of a local school district.
Exhaustion would give the state of California a reasonable
opportunity to investigate and correct the district's failures
prior to judicial intervention. In Hoeft, the Ninth Circuit
emphasized the importance of giving the state department of
education an opportunity to investigate and correct local district
failures in the first instance. It explained that this is because
the state bears "ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance
with the IDEA." As it said there, allowing plaintiffs to
"circumvent this scheme" when challenging local policies would
"undermine the IDEA's enforcement structure."

For all of these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment
of the district court in favor of the Defendants. It granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice of past OHA orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yn9uwzy3 from Leagle.com.

Guy B. Wallace (argued) -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com --
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Emeryville, California;
Shawna L. Parks -- sparks@dralegal.org -- Law Office of Shawna L.
Parks, in Los Angeles, California; Jinny Kim --
jkim@legalaidatwork.org -- and Alexis Alvarez --
aalvarez@legalaidatwork.org -- Legal Aid at Work, in San Francisco,
California; Jose R. Allen and Christina M. Krokee, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in Palo Alto, California; for the
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Don Willenburg (argued) -- dwillenburg@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP, in Oakland, California; Mark S. Posard and
Judith A. Cregan, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, in Sacramento,
California; for the Defendants-Appellees.

Neeraj Kumar, Ramaah Sadasivam --
ramaah.sadasivam@disabilityrightsca.org -- Suge Lee --
slee@fisherphillips.com -- and Melinda Bird --
melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org -- Disability Rights
California, in Oakland, California, for Amici Curiae Disability
Rights California, The ARC of the United States, Arizona Center for
Disability Law, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc.,
Disability Law Center of Alaska, Disability Rights Advocates,
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Rights
Oregon, and Learning Rights Law Center.


SANMEDICA INTL: Court Amends Protective Order in Pizana Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAUL PIZANA, an individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, and DOES, 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-00644-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California amended the Protective Order in the action
consistent with the Parties' stipulation to permit, without
violating the terms of the Pizana Protective Order.

The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record,
enter into the stipulation to amend the Protective Order filed on
April 10, 2020.

On May 9, 2018, Raul Pizana, by and through the Plaintiff's counsel
of record at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and Tycko & Zavareei, LLP,
filed a putative class action against the Defendant, represented by
the Defendant's counsel of record at Price, Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC,
as well as local counsel at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae
LLP, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, entitled Pizana v. SanMedica International, LLC, Case
No. 18-CV-00644, to assert claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and
California consumers, regarding the Defendant's alleged false
advertising of an oral amino acid dietary supplement called
SeroVital that increases growth hormone, which in turn provides
related anti-aging benefits ("Pizana Action").

On November 13, 2019, Holly Deibler, by and through the Plaintiff's
counsel of record at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and Tycko & Zavareei,
LLP, as well as local counsel at Miller Shah LLP, filed a putative
class action against the Defendant, represented by the Defendant's
counsel of record at Price, Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC, as well as
local counsel at Newman, Simpson & Cohen, LLP, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, entitled Deibler v.
SanMedica International, LLC, Case No. 1:19-CV-20155, to assert
claims on behalf of Ms. Deibler and New Jersey consumers, regarding
Defendant's alleged false advertising of an oral amino acid dietary
supplement called SeroVital that increases growth hormone, which in
turn provides related anti-aging benefits ("Deibler Action").

The Protective Order entered in the Pizana Action on April 10, 2020
governs the permissible use and disclosure of materials designated
as confidential and, among other things, prohibits its use for any
purpose other than the prosecution, defense, appeal or settlement
of the Pizana Action ("Pizana Protective Order").

The Discovery Confidentiality Order entered in the Deibler Action
on November 4, 2020 governs the permissible use and disclosure of
materials designated as confidential and, among other things,
prohibits its use for any purpose other than the prosecution or
defense of the Deibler Action ("Deibler Discovery Confidentiality
Order").

The parties in the Pizana Action and the Deibler Action have met
and conferred through counsel of record at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.
and Tycko & Zavareei, LLP for the Plaintiffs, and Price Parkinson &
Kerr, PLLC for the Defendant, on March 31, 2021, April 9, 2021,
April 14, 2021, and April 16, 2021, among other dates, regarding
reducing litigation costs and attorney-hours through the avoidance
of unnecessary duplication of discovery by using discovery taken in
the Pizana Action as though it were taken in the Deibler Action,
and vice versa, to the same extent as it would be so usable had it
been taken in the either of the actions, including the use of
materials marked confidential under the terms of the Pizana
Protective Order or the Deibler Discovery Confidentiality Order.

The parties in the Pizana Action and the Deibler Action, by and
through their respective counsel, have agreed to use in the Deibler
Action Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) depositions1 taken in the Pizana
Action, which may have been marked as "confidential" or "attorneys
eyes only."

Amendments to the Pizana Protective Order are necessary to permit
the use of the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) depositions designated as
"confidential" and/or "attorneys' eyes only" in the Deibler Action,
and the potential unsealing of those documents by the court
therein, without potentially violating the terms of the Pizana
Protective Order.

Therefore, the parties further stipulate and agree:

     i. Paragraph three (3) in the Pizana Protective Order will be
amended to read: "Confidential Information will not be used or
disclosed for any purpose other than the prosecution, defense,
appeal or settlement of this action and the related action entitled
Deibler v. SanMedica International, LLC, Case No. 1:19-CV-20155,
presently pending before the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. Any use of such information for any other
purpose, or any disclosure of such information to anyone not
authorized under this Protective Order, is expressly prohibited and
would constitute a material breach of this Order."

     ii. Explicit references to the Pizana Action, judge, and/or
court in the Pizana Protective Order, including the use of pronouns
such as this action, this litigation, the Court, the Eastern
District of California, and similar terms intended to refer to the
matter and the presiding judge or court, will be amended and read
to include both the Pizana Action and the Deibler Action, and their
respective judges, courts, and the jurisdictions of the Eastern
District of California and District of New Jersey for the United
States District Court;

     iii. The Pizana Protective Order will be amended and read to
permit the use of materials marked as confidential or attorneys'
eyes only for the purpose of prosecuting or defending the Pizana
Action and/or Deibler Action, in their entirety, including any
settlement or appeals, without violating the Pizana Protective
Order;

     iv. The Pizana Protective Order will be amended and read to
permit the courts in the Pizana Action and Deibler Action to issue
rulings regarding the confidentiality and sealing of materials
marked as confidential or attorneys' eyes only under the terms of
the Pizana Protective Order, pursuant to the procedural rules
governing the respective actions, including L.R. 141 and 14.1 of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California and L. Civ. R. 5-3 of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey governing motions to seal and
confidentiality, if said issues are brought before the court in
either action for adjudication; and

     v. Any court rulings rendered with respect to the
confidentiality and/or sealing of materials marked as confidential
or attorneys' eyes only will be binding only in the action in which
the ruling was rendered.

Based on the Parties' stipulation, and for good cause shown, Judge
Oberto amended the Pizana Protective Order consistent with the
Parties' stipulation to permit, without violating the terms of the
Pizana Protective Order:

       (i) the use of materials marked as "confidential" or
"attorneys' eyes only" for the purpose of prosecuting or defending
the action and the Deibler Action, entitled Deibler v. SanMedica
International, LLC, United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey Case No. 1:19-CV-20155, in their entirety, including
any settlement or appeals; and

       (ii) the courts presiding over the action and the Deibler
Action to rule upon issues brought before them regarding the
confidentiality and sealing of said materials pursuant to the
procedural rules governing the respective courts, and said rulings
will be binding only in the action in which the ruling was
rendered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vhk5bact from Leagle.com.

EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & McRAE LLP, Stephen Y. Ma --
sma@earlysullivan.com -- Lisa L. Boswell --
lboswell@earlysullivan.com -- in Los Angeles, California.

PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC, STEVEN GARFF, JASON M. KERR, RONALD
F. PRICE, DAVID R. PARKINSON, in Salt Lake City, Utah, Counsel for
Defendant SanMedica International, LLC.

CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC, Ryan J. Clarkson --
rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Shireen M. Clarkson --
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Katherine A. Bruce, Los Angeles,
California.

TYCKO & ZAVAREEL, LLO, Annick M. Persinger --
apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Mallory Morales, in Oakland, California,
Counsel for Plaintiff Paul Pizana and Putative Class Members.


SCIPLAY CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Reed Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for class
certification filed in Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation, is
pending.

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff, Sheryl Fife, filed a putative class
action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corporation, against SGC
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing Scientific Games (SGC) online social casino games,
including but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish
Casino.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory
relief.

On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December
18, 2018. SGC filed its answer to the putative class action
complaint on January 18, 2019.

On August 24, 2020, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend her complaint and to substitute a new plaintiff,
Donna Reed, for the initial plaintiff, and re-captioned the matter
Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation.

On August 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
against SGC, asserting the same claims, and seeking the same
relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife.

On September 8, 2020, SGC filed a motion to compel arbitration of
plaintiff's claims and to dismiss the action, or, in the
alternative, to transfer the action to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, and that motion is fully-briefed
and pending before the trial court.

On April 9, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
putative class and for a preliminary injunction.

SciPlay said, "Although the case was brought against Scientific
Games, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would
expect to cover or contribute to any damage awards due to the
matter arising as a result of our business. We are currently unable
to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss."

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.


SELECTQUOTE INC: Faces Hartel Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN HARTEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SELECTQUOTE, INC., TIM DANKER, and RAFFAELE SADUN Case
No. 1:21-cv-06903 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
SelectQuote securities between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period") pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 11, 2021, SelectQuote held a conference call in connection
with its third quarter 2021 financial results during which it
disclosed that its fourth quarter results would be impacted by a
"negative cohort and tail adjustment" due to "lower second-term
persistency for the 2019 cohort."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.50, or 20%, to
close at $21.90 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that SelectQuote's 2019 cohort was
underperforming.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Mr. Hartel purchased SelectQuote securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

SelectQuote is a direct-to-consumer distribution platform that
offers complex senior health, life, and auto & home insurance
policies from a curated panel of insurance carriers. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

SESEN BIO INC: Faces Bibb Suit in New York Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN BIBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SESEN BIO, INC., THOMAS R. CANNELL, and
MONICA FORBES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07025 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
19, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Sesen Bio securities between
December 21, 2020 and August 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that Sesen Bio's clinical trial for Vicineum had more than 2,000
violations of trial protocol, including 215 classified as "major";
(2) that three of Sesen Bio's clinical investigators were found
guilty of "serious noncompliance," including "back-dating data";
(3) that Sesen Bio had submitted the tainted data in connection
with the BLA for Vicineum; (4) that Sesen Bio's clinical trials
showed that Vicineum leaked out into the body, leading to side
effects including liver failure and liver toxicity, and increasing
the risks for fatal, drug-induced liver injury; (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's BLA for Vicineum was not
likely to be approved; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing,
there was a reasonable likelihood that Sesen Bio would be required
to conduct additional trials to support the efficacy and safety of
Vicineum; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

SESEN BIO, INC. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
develops antibody-drug conjugate therapies for the treatment of
cancer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               -and-

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

SGE MANAGEMENT: Court Awards Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Torres Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN RAMON TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs v. SGE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-02056
(S.D. Tex.), Judge Charles Eskridge of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued an Opinion
and Order awarding attorney fees and expenses to the various
counsel for the Plaintiffs and their respective law firms upon
their successful settlement in the case.

Background

The case is a fee dispute between the counsel who brought and
litigated the action. They ultimately obtained good results for
their clients through a settlement reached in October 2018. The
dispute over fees has toiled on, being now on remand from the Fifth
Circuit for a closer review of factors as directed in Torres v SGE
Management, LLC, 945 F.3d 347 (5th Cir 2019).

The Plaintiffs initially retained Jeffrey Burnett and the eponymous
firm of Jeffery W. Burnett, PLLC to bring claims against the
Defendants for creating a multi-level marketing program that they
alleged was a fraudulent pyramid scheme. Burnett in turn hired
Scott Clearman and his eponymous firm of The Clearman Law Firm LLP
to initiate a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They agreed to
split any fees, with Burnett receiving 25% and Clearman receiving
75%.

Mr. Clearman later formed Clearman Prebeg LLP with Matthew Prebeg
and thereafter assigned his former firm's fee interest to his new
firm. Andrew Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz, PC also eventually
joined the case as class counsel. All counsel then entered into a
new fee agreement under which Clearman Prebeg would receive 60% of
any fees (to be split among its four partners) while Burnett and
Sommers Schwartz would each receive 20%.

Mr. Clearman unfortunately began to experience issues associated
with substance abuse at some point in 2011. The various counsel
dispute the extent of his involvement in the case thereafter. But
it's apparent that the relationship between Clearman and fellow
counsel (including his law partner, Prebeg) fractured and remains
in a state of disrepair.

Three partners eventually left Clearman Prebeg to form Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott, PLLC in January 2014. That same month Judge
Kenneth Hoyt certified the class and named Clearman, Kochanowski,
and Prebeg as co-class counsel. The latter two engaged Goldstein &
Russell to defend the class certification on appeal. The various
counsel (excluding Clearman) then entered into a further amended
fee arrangement in June 2014 under which Goldstein & Russell would
receive between 16% and 18% of the total fee award (depending on
the size) and Burnett would receive another 17% of the total. The
remainder of any fee award was to be divided amongst Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott (51.99%), Sommers Schwartz (30.67%), and Clearman
(17.34%).

The class action eventually settled, with class members able to
choose between two options as consideration for releasing their
claims. One was a cash option, by which class members could receive
20% of the difference between the amount they paid to the
Defendants and the amount that the Defendants paid them. The other
was a benefits option, by which class members could receive a
number of benefits relating to (among others) referral payments,
conference admissions, and reinstatement into the Defendants' sales
program.

Judge Hoyt also ultimately awarded $9,816,633 in fees to the
counsel for the Plaintiffs collectively, subject to allocation.
Clearman sought to recover fully one-half of this award. Judge Hoyt
instead allocated him $1,505,223 in fees in a November 2018 order.
Clearman moved for reconsideration several weeks later, which Judge
Hoyt denied the same day.

Mr. Clearman filed a notice of appeal in December 2018 as to the
fee allocation. Plaintiffs, Kochanowski and Prebeg (along with
their respective firms), Burnett, and Thomas Goldstein and Eric
Citron (along with their firm) filed a cross-appeal, urging that
the allocation was appropriate and that the appeal should be
dismissed. They argued in the alternative that Clearman shouldn't
be allocated any fees, but that if he received any, he should
receive "no more than $840,000 in fees and costs."

The Fifth Circuit vacated the award and remanded "for elaboration
of the trial court's reasoning under the Johnson framework."
Clearman moved to recuse Judge Hoyt from the proceedings on remand,
who did so on March 6, 2020. The action was then reassigned to the
Court.

Various counsel immediately filed voluminous post-remand motions
regarding the dispute over attorney fees. But remand in no way
required a new record. Instead, each class member and associated
class counsel were ordered to file a brief addressing their
positions under the Johnson framework as to the material originally
filed before Judge Hoyt. The pending motions were all denied as
moot.

Mr. Clearman filed a brief arguing that he should receive between
35% and 50% of the fee. Citron and Burnett filed a brief arguing
that the latter and his firm should receive 17% of the fee
(totaling $1,662,724.72 in fees and expenses) while the former and
his firm should receive 18% of the first $5 million, 17% of the
next $3 million, and 16% of the remainder (totaling $1,703,182.65
in fees and expenses). And Kochanowski and Prebeg filed a brief
arguing that the former and his firm should be awarded
$2,532,151.80 in fees and $184,347.26 in expenses while the latter
and his firm should be awarded $3,164,170.00 in fees and
$187,557.38 in expenses. Kochanowski and Prebeg say that Citron and
Burnett should be awarded the fees they request while Clearman, if
he is to receive any fees, "is at most" entitled to $840,866.25
after all other counsel have been paid.

The Court eventually heard oral argument, with all relevant counsel
appearing and articulating their respective positions on the fee
dispute.

Disposition

All materials before Judge Hoyt when making his original award have
now been independently reviewed, and the attorney-fee award has
itself been considered in light of the familiar and controlling
factors outlined in Johnson v Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488
F.2d 714 (5th Cir 1974). The 12 factors as set out by the Fifth
Circuit in Johnson are: First, the time and labor involved; second,
the novelty and difficulty of the questions; third, the skill
requisite to perform the legal services properly; fourth, the
preclusion of other employment due to the case; fifth, the
customary fee; sixth, whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
seventh, time limitations; eighth, the amount involved and results
obtained; ninth, the experience, reputation, and ability of
counsel; tenth, the undesirability of the case; eleventh, the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client,
and; twelfth, awards in similar cases.

Based on such review, Judge Eskridge opines that factor one weighs
most heavily in favor of Prebeg and his firm, followed by
Kochanowski and his firm, Burnett and his firm, Citron and his
firm, and finally Clearman and his firm; factor four doesn't weigh
in favor of any counsel or firm, but it does slightly disfavor
Clearman; factor seven weighs in favor of Citron and slightly in
favor of Burnett, but not in favor of any other counsel; factor
eight weighs in favor of all counsel except for Clearman; factor
eleven weighs in favor of Burnett and against Clearman, and is
neutral as to Prebeg, Kochanowski, Citron, and their respective
firms; and factors two, three, five, six, nine, ten, and twelve
don't weigh in favor of any counsel as compared to any other.

To be clear, the Judge holds that none of the Johnson factors
independently and affirmatively establish that Clearman is entitled
to a fee award most heavily weighted in his favor. And nothing
comes close to supporting an allocation to him of 50% of the
overall fee. The very contention borders on frivolous.

What this means as to the appropriate allocation is that it's a
matter devoted more to experience, rather than any precise metric
of logic or statistics. And in that view, the fee award by Judge
Hoyt -- who dealt with counsel and the litigation from inception to
its conclusion after settlement -- was correct. A lesser award to
Clearman certainly wouldn't have been surprising, given his failure
to maintain and present any reasonable account of his time, along
with his admittedly lessened ability to continue on with the
litigation during and after class certification. But then again,
the award by Judge Hoyt in fact reflected a steep discount as
against the amount requested by Clearman and his hours presented.

Having now reviewed all materials before Judge Hoyt when making his
original fee award, and also having considered each of the factors
outlined in Johnson, Judge Eskridge awarded attorney fees as
follows: $3,010,428 in fees and $87,557 in expenses to Matthew John
Prebeg of Prebeg Faucett Abbott PLLC; $1,766,994.00 in fees and
$84,347 in expenses to Andrew Jack Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz
PC; $1,963,327 in fees and $973 in expenses to Jeffrey West Burnett
of Jeffrey W. Burnett PLLC; $1,570,661 in fees and $3,183 in
expenses to Eric Franklin Citron of Goldstein & Russell, PC; and
$1,505,223 in fees and $80,303 in expenses to Scott Monroe Clearman
of The Clearman Law Firm, PLLC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/up75jvrc from Leagle.com.


SHUN LEE PALACE: Court Moves Class Cert. Filing Deadline to Nov. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wang v. Shun Lee Palace
Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00840-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order extending the time for
Plaintiffs to move for class certification from August 26, 2021 to
November 17, 2021.

On March 1, 2021, the Court set a deadline of August 26, 2021 to
move for class certification -- 30 days after the then-obtaining
deadline to complete fact discovery and depositions.

The Plaintiffs include Guoyi Wang, Tong Wei Wu, Zhi Qiang Lu,
Haiping Wu, Guoliang Xu, Steven Chung, Quek Yeow Yap, Shude Zhang,
Keeyew Foo, Tsunming Fong, Mingsung Chan, Leungtack Choi, Fong Yue,
Billy Qin, Monaliza Wong, and Weijun Zhen

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zvVDCA at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


SOFAS-N-MORE: Underpays Laborers and Stockers, Jimenez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOFAS-N-MORE, INC. and SAMUEL BIRNBAUM, as
an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04668 (E.D.N.Y., August
19, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants to recover damages and other relief for it alleged
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
August 2003 until in or around April 2021 as a laborer and stocker
and to perform other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked more than 40 hours per week for the
Defendants. The Plaintiff worked approximately 84 hours or ore per
week. However, the Defendants failed to pay them the legally
prescribed minimum wage. The Defendants also denied them their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, and a spread-of-hours pay at the legally
prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records,
and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, the suit says.

Sofas-N-More, Inc. operates furniture store owned by Samuel
Birnbaum. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SUNSET FOOD: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Railey BIPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sunset Food Mart, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled RANITA RAILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSET FOOD MART,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06758, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 24, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Nov. 13, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-06758 to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), including damages of $1,000 to $5,000 for each
violation of Sunset's negligent and/or reckless violations of
BIPA.

The Plaintiff worked for Sunset as a General Clerk at its Lake
Forest, Illinois location from January 2016 through January 2018.
The Plaintiff alleged that she and the putative BIPA Class members
had their biometric information collected when they were "required
to place their entire hands on a panel to be scanned in order to
'clock in' and 'clock out' of work."

The appellate case is captioned as Sunset Food Mart, Inc. v. Ranita
Railey, Case No. 21-2533, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on August 20, 2021.

Pursuant to the Court's August 17, 2021 order in Case No. 21-8023,
expedited briefing and oral argument in this appeal will proceed as
follows:

   -- Appellant's brief will be due by August 31, 2021;

   -- Appellee's brief will be due by September 14, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's reply brief will be due by September 21, 2021.

No extensions of time will be granted. Oral argument in this matter
will be held on September 27, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner SUNSET FOOD MART, INC. is
represented by:

         Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
         Andrew R. Cockroft, Esq.
         Noah A. Finkel, Esq.   
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 S. Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606-6448
         Telephone: (312) 460-5922
         E-mail: tahlering@seyfarth.com
                 acockroft@seyfarth.com
                 nfinkel@seyfarth.com   

Plaintiff-Respondent RANITA RAILEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
         CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
         224 S. Michigan Avenue
         Chicago, IL 60604-2536
         Telephone: (312) 763-6880
         E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com

SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029
(E.D.N.C.), is still pending.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.

The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names
as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair Macdonald,
Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"),
and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al,
No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as
defendants the Company, Alistair Macdonald, and Gregory S. Rush.

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 (for the Vaitkuviene action) and
November 9, 2017 (for the Bermudez action).

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the 2017 merger with Double Eagle Parent, Inc. ("inVentiv"), the
parent company of inVentiv Health, Inc., and with respect to the
combined company following the Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff in the Bermudez action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice,
and as to all defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017, contending
that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a)
of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018. The District
Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to a magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation.

On September 26, 2019, the magistrate judge stayed the action and,
on August 7, 2020, the magistrate judge lifted the stay.

Also on August 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending to the District Court that Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss be denied. On September 4, 2020, Defendants filed written
objections to the Magistrate Report, requesting that the District
Court grant the Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response
in Opposition to such objections on October 2, 2020.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these
complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or
result of the foregoing putative class actions, or any other
related lawsuit. As such, the Company is presently unable to
develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of
losses, if any, related to these matters.

Syneos said, "While the Company intends to defend the putative
class action litigation vigorously, the outcome of such litigation
or any other litigation is necessarily uncertain. The Company could
be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these
lawsuits or future ones, and it may not prevail. As such, these
matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, annual, or interim results of operations, cash flows, or
its financial condition."

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

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Daruwalla Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
VEERA DARUWALLA, MICHAEL MARCH, and LAVICIEIA STURDIVANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01118
(W.D. Wash., Aug. 19, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
take reasonable steps to protect the personal identifying
information ("PII") of the Plaintiff and the Class.

On August 16, 2021, T-Mobile confirmed that hackers using the
Twitter handle @und0xxed had in fact gained unauthorized access to
T-Mobile data through T-Mobile servers (the "Data Breach").

According to the complaint, the stolen personal identifying
information ("PII") includes customers' names, addresses, social
security numbers, drivers license information, phone numbers, dates
of birth, security PINs, phone numbers, and, for some customers,
unique IMSI and IMEI numbers, embedded in customer mobile devices
that identify the device and the SIM card that ties that customer's
device to a telephone number, all going back as far as the mid
1990s. The hackers claim to have a database that includes credit
card numbers with six digits of the cards obfuscated, says the
suit.

Allegedly, as the target of many data breaches in the past,
T-Mobile knew its systems were vulnerable to attack. Yet it failed
to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect
its customers' personal information, yet again putting millions of
customers at great risk of scams and identity theft. Its customers
expected and deserved better from the second largest wireless
provider in the country, added the suit.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. operates as a telecommunications company. The
Company specializes in radiotelephone services and communication,
distribution of services, and cellular devices. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               -and-

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone:  (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile:  (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  joliver@moginrubin.com
                  tlacomb@moginrubin.com

               -and-

          Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 630-0616
          Facsimile: (877) 247-8586
          E-mail: jrubin@moginrubin.com

               -and-

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com

T-MOBILE USA: Faces Espanoza Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ESPANOZA, JONATHAN MORALES, and ALEX PYGIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,  Plaintiffs v.
T‐MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01119 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 19, 2021) is class action arising out of the recent
cyberattack and data breach that was perpetrated against the
Defendant that provides mobile telephone services to customers
throughout the United States (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach
resulted in unauthorized access and exfiltration of highly
sensitive and personal information (the "Private Information").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a result of the
alleged data breach, approximately 40 million former or prospective
customers who applied for credit with T‐Mobile, 7.8 million
current postpaid customers, and 850,000 active prepaid customers
(the "Class Members") suffered present injury and damages in the
form of identity theft, out‐of‐pocket expenses and the value of
the time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal
misuse of their sensitive and highly personal information.

The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes
names, phone numbers, drivers' licenses, government identification
numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and T‐Mobile
account PINs.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. operates as a telecommunications company. The
Company specializes in radiotelephone services and communication,
distribution of services, and cellular devices. [BN

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               -and-

          M. Anderson Berry, 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

               -and-

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429‐2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429‐2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  lietz@masonllp.com

               -and-

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429‐2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429‐2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

               -and-

          William Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Truist Place
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 500‐1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435‐2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

T-MOBILE USA: Metzger Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Edmund Metzger, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-04721 (E.D. N.Y., August 20, 2021), seeks to recover
damages and other relief resulting from the data breach, including
but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of costs
and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief resulting from
negligence, breach of express and implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
the New York SHIELD Act and New York general business laws.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a nationwide telecommunications company
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, headquartered in Bonn, Germany.
T-Mobile collects a significant amount of data from its current and
former customers, often including sensitive personal information
such as Social Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers,
dates of birth, bank account numbers, credit card numbers,
financial transaction records, credit ratings and driver's license
numbers.

On August 19, 2021, T-Mobile announced a "Notice of Data Breach" on
its website that it had learned on August 17, 2021.

Metzger alleges that T-Mobile failed to safeguard the confidential
information of millions of current and former T-Mobile USA, Inc.
customers. The confidential information stolen appears to be
encompass names, birthdays, Social Security numbers, driver’s
license numbers, phone numbers, and account PINs, among other
Personal Identifying Information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc J. Held, Esq.
      HELD & HINES, L.L.P.
      2004 Ralph Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11234
      Tel: (718) 531-9700
      Email: mheld@heldhines.com


TD BANK: New Jersey Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Campagna Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATALIE CAMPAGNA and GLORIA DEVAULT, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TD
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-18533 (RMB/SAK) (D.N.J.), Judge
Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Camden Vicinage, denied TD Bank's Motion to Dismiss.

Between 2016 and 2019, the Plaintiffs in the matter applied for and
received secured credit cards from TD Bank. A secured card is a
type of credit card that requires the cardholder to provide a
security deposit in the amount of the credit line. The security
deposit is used to "secure" the credit line and cannot be accessed
by the consumer as long as the secured card account is open.

A 10-page form contract governs the use of the secured cards.
Section 3(C) of the Agreement addresses the aspect of the secured
cards at issue: The "graduation" to an unsecured credit card. When
a holder of a secured card "graduates," TD Bank returns their
security deposit to them, and they receive a prorated refund of the
secured credit card's annual fee. They may also receive a "boost"
to their credit score based on changes reported by TD Bank to the
credit reporting agencies.

Each Named Plaintiff alleges that they maintained their secured
cards for at least seven months without committing an act of
default. Nevertheless, they were never graduated to an unsecured
card. In fact, some were allegedly informed that the graduation
process is not, in fact, automatically undertaken by TD Bank after
seven months, despite the language in the Agreement. Moreover, a TD
Bank customer service specialist allegedly told one Named Plaintiff
that "hardly anyone ever graduates due to the lengthy process
involving many outside factors." Indeed, as of the filing of the
Amended Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs allege that they have not
been graduated, despite maintaining their secured cards without
committing an act of default for between approximately 15 and 37
months.

Meanwhile, one Named Plaintiff alleges that TD Bank customer
service representatives would, upon notifying her that she did not
qualify to graduate, propose that she separately attempt to open an
unsecured card and request a larger line of credit. The Amended
Complaint also alleges that one cardholder was told by a TD Bank
customer service representative "that the review period for
promotion to an unsecured account took place after two years," as
opposed to seven months. This, the Amended Complaint alleges, "is
spelled out in a much less prominent location on TD Bank's
website," which "invites consumers who already have a TD Secured
Credit Card to apply for an unsecured credit card."

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that "the practice is not new." They
point to comments made in 2013 on an online forum by a user called
"@taxi818." The user complained that, despite initially being
"advised that he could graduate to an unsecured card after six
months of" using a secured card, he was told after the sixth month
that "the review period for promotion to an unsecured account took
place after two years rather than what was stated in the contract."
The Defendant notes that other comments left on the same forum
contradict @taxi818's supposed experience.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit on December 8, 2020. The Defendant
timely filed the present Motion to Dismiss on January 19, 2021. The
Plaintiffs responded by timely filing the Amended Complaint on
January 22, 2021. The Amended Complaint alleges five Counts. Count
I alleges Breach of Contract and Breach of the Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing, on behalf of the National Class. Count II
alleges Violation of Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act, 6 DEL. C.
Sections 2511-27 ("DCFA"), on behalf of the National Class. Count
III alleges a violation of the New York General Business Law, N.Y.
GEN. BUS. LAW Section 349, et seq., on behalf of the New York
Plaintiffs and Subclass. Count IV alleges violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq.,
("NJCFA"), on behalf of the New Jersey Plaintiff and Subclass.
Finally, Count V alleges violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act, CONN. GEN. STAT. Section 42-110a, et seq.,
("CUTPA"), on behalf of the Connecticut Plaintiff and Subclass.

On January 22, 2021, the Court issued an Order that, among other
things, required the Defendant to either supplement its Motion to
Dismiss or indicate that it would rest on the Motion as previously
filed. Before the Defendant responded to that Order, the Plaintiffs
filed their response to the Motion, arguing that it was moot, given
the filing of the Amended Complaint. Nevertheless, the Defendant
filed its supplemental brief on February 10, 2021. The parties
later agreed to a briefing schedule that permitted the Plaintiffs
the opportunity to fully address the arguments raised in the
Defendant's Motion. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their Response
in Opposition on March 8, 2021. The Defendant filed its Reply on
March 18, 2021.

II. Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs allege that the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million. They allege that they are citizens of New York,
New Jersey, South Carolina, and Connecticut. The Defendant is a
citizen of New Jersey. Therefore, minimal diversity exists and the
requisite amount in controversy is met, so the Court exercises
subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to CAFA.

III. Analysis

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Brief argue that
the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its
entirety. All of the Plaintiffs' claims essentially turn on whether
Defendant followed through on the promises it made to the
Plaintiffs. Therefore, Judge Bumb begins by analyzing the parties'
interpretations of what was promised. She does so by considering
the Agreement itself, as compared to the Plaintiffs' allegations in
the Amended Complaint.

The parties seemingly do not dispute that the Agreement guarantees
that the Defendant will automatically review an account for
graduation once the cardholder has maintained the card for seven
months without default. However, the parties dispute whether the
Agreement guarantees anything beyond that. The Plaintiffs contend
that the Agreement contains three more guarantees beyond the mere
promise to review. First, they argue that the Defendant promises
"to release customer funds and issue a prorated refund if the
review is successful," and that this promise is false. Second, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant promises to automatically
upgrade accounts "when the seven-months-without-default
'eligibility requirement' is met." And finally, they argue that the
Defendant promises to notify customers who meet the requirements of
their automatic graduation, which promise the Plaintiffs also claim
is false.

The Defendant -- rightfully -- does not dispute that the Agreement
guarantees notification of automatic graduation and a prorated
refund upon graduation. However, it does argue that the Plaintiffs'
claim that the Agreement guarantees automatic graduation upon
satisfaction of the threshold requirements would require the Court
to "read a promise into the contract that is not there -- a
'promise to upgrade accounts in seven months.'" The Defendant notes
that the Agreement does not promise automatic graduation after
seven months without default. Rather, it argues, the Agreement only
states that a cardholder who maintains their account for seven
months without defaulting "may be eligible to graduate to an
unsecured TD Bank credit card automatically." The only promise made
by the Agreement is that Defendant will "automatically review" a
cardholder's account for graduation once the cardholder "meets the
threshold eligibility requirements" -- that is, (1) maintaining the
account for seven consecutive months (2) without any acts of
default.

Judge Bumb finds that the Agreement makes the following relevant
promises. First, the Agreement guarantees that the Defendant will
automatically review accounts for graduation after seven
consecutive default-free months. Second, the Agreement guarantees
that Defendant will issue a prorated refund of the annual fee when
an account is graduated. Third, the Agreement guarantees that the
Defendant will notify a cardholder who is eligible for graduation.

The Agreement does not, however, guarantee that the Defendant will
automatically graduate any account after seven consecutive
default-free months. The Judge holds that although the Agreement
does not specify what other factors will go into the decision to
graduate an account, it clearly implies that there are requirements
beyond simply maintaining the account for seven consecutive
default-free months. Therefore, she agrees with the Defendant that
the Plaintiff's argument that the Agreement calls for the automatic
graduation of any account that has been maintained for seven
consecutive default-free months would require the Court to "read a
promise into the contract that is not there."

In the case, the Judge finds that only the promise to automatically
review is truly relevant. The other two promises outlined --
notification of impending automatic graduation and automatic
prorated refund upon graduation -- are not relevant. After all, the
Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts to support the allegation
that the Defendant failed to refund prorated annual fees to any
graduated accounts or failed to automatically notify anybody whose
graduation was imminent. These two promises only come into play
when a cardholder has graduated to an unsecured credit card. In the
case, the Plaintiffs readily admit that they have not been
graduated. This is the entire thrust of their Amended Complaint.
Therefore, those promises are irrelevant.

However, the Judge holds that the promise to automatically review
is relevant because the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed
to uphold that promise. The only evidence the Plaintiffs point to
in support of this allegation comes in the form of statements
allegedly made by the Defendant's customer service representatives
that indicated that the Defendant did not automatically review
accounts after seven default-free months. At this stage of
litigation, the Court is obligated to accept those allegations as
true. Therefore, the Judge assumes that the Defendant's customer
service representatives made the alleged statements and that they
were reflective of the Defendant's true policy. This allegation is
the thread that keeps each of the Plaintiffs' claims alive.

Decision

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bumb denies the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss. An accompanying Order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/23fxf9dy from Leagle.com.

Richard M. Golomb -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- and Kenneth J.
Grunfeld -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik, P.C., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, On behalf of the Plaintiffs.

Margaret Mary Doyle -- mdoyle@brownconnery.com -- and Susan M.
Leming -- sleming@brownconnery.com -- Brown & Connery, LLP, in
Westmont, New Jersey, On behalf of the Defendant.


TRADE DESK: Faces Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------
The Trade Desk, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a
class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in relation to matters voted on at the Special Meeting of
Stockholders held on December 22, 2020 (the "Amendments").

On June 28, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, and one
of its executive officers in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

The complaint alleges generally that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with
the negotiation and approval of the amendments and related matters
voted on at the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on December
22, 2020.

Plaintiff seeks a court order rescinding the Amendments, as well as
monetary damages.

The Company believes that all of the claims asserted in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.

Trade Desk said, "However, litigation is inherently uncertain and
there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that the
Defendants' defense of the action will be successful."

The Trade Desk, Inc. is a technology company that empowers buyers
of advertising. Through its self-service, cloud-based platform, ad
buyers can create, manage, and optimize more expressive data-driven
digital advertising campaigns across ad formats and channels,
including display, video, audio, native and social, on a multitude
of devices, such as computers, mobile devices, and connected TV
(CTV). The company is based in Ventura, California.


TRICIDA INC: Bid to Nix Pardi Putative Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Tricida, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative securities class action entitled, Pardi v.
Tricida, Inc., et al., is pending.

On January 6, 2021, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and its CEO and CFO, Pardi v. Tricida, Inc., et
al., 21-cv-00076.

In April 2021, the court appointed Jeffrey Fiore as lead plaintiff
and Block & Leviton LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.

In June 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
alleges that during the period between June 28, 2018 through
February 25, 2021, the Company and its senior officers violated the
federal securities laws, including under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, through alleged public misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material facts concerning the Company's new drug
application (NDA) for veverimer and the likelihood and timing of
approval of veverimer by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The amended complaint makes claims against the Company and its CEO.


In July 2021, Tricida filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

No damages amount is specified in the Securities Class Action.

Tricida, Inc. operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company. The Company
focuses on the discovery and clinical development of novel
therapeutics to address renal, metabolic, and cardiovascular
diseases. Tricida serves patients in the United States. The company
is based in South San Francisco, California.


TYSON FOODS: Settlement with Turkey Purchasers Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement with the putative direct
purchaser class and with the putative commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser class, in the class action suits initiated by
turkey purchasers.

On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
entered into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive
information regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans,
all with the intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class. On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of
all commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that
purchased directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator
during the class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017,
alleging claims based on the Sherman Act and various state law
causes of action.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class. The company moved to dismiss the complaints, and in
decisions on October 19 and 26, 2020, the court partially denied
the motions.

In April 2021, the company reached agreement to settle all claims
with the putative direct purchaser class for $4.625 million and
with the putative commercial and institutional indirect purchaser
class for $1.75 million.

On May 25, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement with the putative direct purchaser class and on July 26,
2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement with
the putative commercial and institutional indirect purchaser class.


Tyson said, "While we do not admit any liability as part of the
settlements, we believe that the settlements were in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders in order to avoid the
uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted
litigation."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Wage-Fixing Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to the
alleged fixing of the rate of wages for non-supervisory production
and maintenance workers.

On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional
complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily
Earnest.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits were filed by
individuals making similar allegations, and others may do so in the
future. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint
containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing
plants and named additional defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On
September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and
certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint
improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries.

The court otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and
sustained claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and
exchange information against five other defendants.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
to address the impermissible group pleading.

On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint reasserting their claims. On December 18, 2020,
defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended
complaint.

On March 10, 2021, the court denied the defendants' motion. On
April 7, 2021, the company and the other defendants answered the
second amended complaint.

Tyson said, "For the third quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company
recorded an accrual for estimated probable losses that it expects
to incur for this matter in the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UNITED SERVICES: Faces Mapes Suit Over Disclosed Customers' Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MAPES on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. Case
2:21-cv-04534 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021) is class action against
USAA for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly
valuable, protected personally identifiable information, including
without limitation, Driver's License numbers (PII).

Ms. Mapes alleges that USAA failed to comply with industry
standards to protect information systems that contain PII;
unlawfully disclosed  her and Class Members' PII; and failed to
provide adequate notice to her and other Class Members that their
PII had been disclosed and compromised.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and orders requiring USAA to fully and
accurately disclose the PII and other information that has been
compromised and/or disclosed, and to adopt reasonably sufficient
security practices and safeguards to protect Plaintiff's and the
Class's PII from unauthorized disclosures, and to prevent incidents
like this disclosure from occurring again in the future.

The Plaintiff further seeks an order requiring USAA to provide
identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members
for their lifetimes, as Plaintiff and Class Members are at risk and
will continue to be at an increased risk of identity theft due to
the disclosure of their PII as a result of USAA's conduct.

Before using their services, USAA requires users to become a USAA
member and create an account. The Plaintiff does not meet the
requirements for USAA membership and has never been a USAA member.
Accordingly, Plaintiff never voluntarily signed up for USAA
membership or provided USAA with any of her PII, the suit says.

According to the complaint, Cyber criminals used Plaintiff's
information to open a fraudulent USAA membership account and
request an insurance quote in her name. Despite failing to meet the
USAA membership criteria, USAA nevertheless allowed Plaintiff to
become a member and provided her PII to cyber criminals that
submitted the request for a quote.

On June 2, 2021, USAA provided Plaintiff with a notice indicating
that on May 6, 2021, an unidentified third-party illegally used
some of Plaintiff's information, including her name and date of
birth, to obtain an auto insurance quote from Defendant's website,
www.usaa.com. Although Plaintiff was not previously a USAA member,
and had never provided USAA with any PII, the auto insurance quote
Defendant provided disclosed Plaintiff's Driver's License number to
the unauthorized third party.

As a result, Plaintiff has personally experienced alleged fraud.
For example, cyber criminals used Plaintiff's PII which it obtained
from USAA to fraudulently obtain and take out an insurance policy
out in her name from another third-party provider.

Ms. Mapes is a resident of Nassau County, New York. She says that
her PII was disclosed without her authorization to unknown third
parties as a result of USAA's Data Breach. Since disclosing
Plaintiff's PII, she has personally experienced fraud, she
asserts.

USAA is a Fortune 500 company that provides insurance and financial
services, to current and former members of the U.S. military and
their families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  afiorilla@lowey.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399-4770
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: achristina@lowey.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  ncolella@carlsonlynch.com

VERRA MOBILITY: Class Certification Ruling in Brantley Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verra Mobility Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the class
certification ruling in Brantley v. City of Gretna, is pending.

Brantley v. City of Gretna is a class action lawsuit filed in the
24th Judicial District Court of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana against
the City of Gretna and its safety camera vendor, Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc. in April 2016.

The plaintiff class, which was certified on March 30, 2021, alleges
that the City's safety camera program was implemented and operated
in violation of local ordinances and the state constitution,
including that the City's hearing process violated the plaintiffs'
due process rights for lack of a "neutral" arbiter of liability for
traffic infractions. Plaintiffs seek recovery of traffic infraction
fines paid.

The City and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. have initiated an appeal
of the trial court's ruling granting class certification, which
remains pending.

Verra said, "Based on the information available to the Company at
present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Verra Mobility Corporation is a leading provider of smart mobility
technology solutions and services to customers located throughout
the world, primarily within the United States, Australia, Europe
and Canada. The company is based in Mesa, Arizona.


VILLAGE OF ALSIP, IL: Lewis Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shellie Lewis filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled SHELLIE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF ALSIP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02124, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9, 2021, Judge
Ronald A. Guzman granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint filed in this case.

This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff Lewis, a
resident of the Village of Alsip, Illinois, alleges that Alsip
violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.
On Jan. 31, 2021, Lewis found on her car's windshield a ticket
Alsip issued for violating Section 19-91 of its Code of Ordinances.
Under Section 19-91.1 of the Code, any person convicted of a
violation of Section 19-91 "shall be fined not less than $25 and
not more than $250 for each offense."  

Lewis owns a car that she regularly parks on Alsip's public
streets. Some time prior to Jan. 30, 2021, Lewis had parked her car
near 12536 South Central Park Avenue. There were no signs posted
restricting her ability to park there.  She found her ticket in the
snow on her windshield.

On Feb. 17, 2021, an Alsip administrative hearing officer found
Lewis liable for violating Section 19-91 and imposed a $50 fine,
which Lewis paid that day. At the time of her hearing, there were
dozens of others present who had hearings at the same time for
tickets that were issued to them for violating the same ordinance.

Before the hearings began, the hearing officer spoke to everyone in
attendance and told them that the lack of street signage regarding
secondary-snow-route parking restrictions was not a valid basis to
contest the ticket, and that because the snow-route laws were
posted on Alsip's website, "the burden was on them to know" that no
parking was permitted on the street at the time they received the
tickets. Because of these remarks, Lewis did not argue when she
appeared before the hearing officer that there had been no signage
and thus a lack of fair notice; instead, she merely protested that
the only place she could park was on the street and that it was
unfair to have been ticketed.

Ms. Lewis alleges that Alsip does not post signs to inform people
about the secondary-snow-route parking restrictions and that the
issuance of tickets for violating Section 19-91 violates the due
process rights of plaintiff and all others who are similarly
situated, because such tickets are issued without "fair and proper
notice" of the parking restrictions.

Ms. Lewis seeks to represent a class of "all persons who, during
the Class Period, have been ticketed and/or fined pursuant to
Section 19-91 and 19-91.1 of the Village's Code of Ordinances."
Lewis seeks (1) a declaration that Alsip's policy of issuing
tickets for violation of Section 19-91 without fair notice violates
the Due Process Clause; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctions
barring Alsip from enforcing the ordinance against the Plaintiff
and others without providing fair notice in accord with the
requirements of due process; (3) nominal and compensatory damages;
and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Ms. Lewis now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge Guzman
dismissing the Amended Complaint filed in the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Shellie Lewis v. Village of
Alsip, Case No. 21-2528, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on August 19, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 2, 2021;
and

  -- Appellant's brief is due on or before September 28, 2021 for
Shellie Lewis.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHELLIE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

Defendant-Appellee VILLAGE OF ALSIP is represented by:

          Michael G. Cainkar, Esq.
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 236-3985

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Parks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA PARKS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES;
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 21 STCV30695 (S.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2021) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Parks was employed by the Defendants as housekeeping
supervisor.

Volunteers of America of Los Angeles operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides social services to
children's, family, seniors, as well as organize events and
programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com
                  kevin@hbklawyers.com

VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Karp Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the lead plaintiff in
Karp v. Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. et al., voluntarily dismissed
the action without prejudice against all defendants and as to all
claims.

On January 22, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against us and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, captioned Karp v. Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No.
1:21-cv-00381.

The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Huntington's Program and
the company's investigational new drug application for VY-HTT01.  

On April 19, 2021, the court appointed the lead plaintiff for the
action, and on April 30, 2021, the action was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (where it was
assigned case number 1:21-cv-10727).  

On July 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice against all defendants and as to all
claims.  

This matter is no longer pending.

Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage gene therapy company
focused on developing life-changing treatments for patients
suffering from severe neurological diseases. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in the
consolidated putative class action suit has heard oral argument on
the defendant's motion to dismiss, and has taken the motion under
advisement.

In September 2019, Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko,
Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a
Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and
Jefferies, LLC were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit entitled Walter Welch, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated vs. Christopher Meaux, David Pringle,
Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings
Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc.
and Jefferies, LLC.

The case was filed in the Western District of Louisiana, Lake
Charles Division.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff asserts putative class action claims
alleging, inter alia, that various defendants made false and
misleading statements in securities filings, engaged in fraud, and
violated accounting and securities rules.

A similar putative class action lawsuit, entitled Kelly Bates,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta,
Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc.,
Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and Jefferies, LLC, was filed in
that same court in November 2019.

These two cases were consolidated, and an amended complaint was
filed in October 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in
February 2021.

The Court has heard oral argument on that motion, and has taken the
motion under advisement.

Waitr believes that this lawsuit lacks merit and that it has strong
defenses to all of the claims alleged. Waitr continues to
vigorously defend the suit.

Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery
platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities
across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana.


WAITR HOLDINGS: BCC Has Until October to File Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiff's deadline to
file a motion for class certification in Bobby's Country Cookin' et
al v. Waitr, is October 2021.

In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant
partners, captioned Bobby's Country Cookin', et al v. Waitr, which
is currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, claims for breach of
contract, violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
unjust enrichment, and seek recovery on behalf of themselves and
two separate classes.

Based on the current class definitions, as many as 10,000
restaurant partners could be members of the two separate classes
that the representative plaintiffs are attempting to certify.

Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is
October 2021.

Waitr maintains that the underlying allegations and claims lack
merit, and that the classes, as pled, are incapable of
certification.

Waitr continues to vigorously defend the suit.

Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery
platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities
across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana.


WASHINGTON PRIME: Cousinou Putative Class Suit in Ohio Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Prime Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jean-Marie Cousinou ,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Washington Prime Group Inc. et al., Case: 2:21-cv-03431-SDM-EPD.  

The company (WPG) and certain of its executive officers were named
as defendants in two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, each filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern
Division), on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired WPG common share securities during a specified period of
time stated in the respective complaints.

The plaintiff in one of the Securities Class Action Litigation
cases is identified as Randy Slipher and the case is captioned:
Randy Slipher, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Washington Prime Group Inc. et al., Case:
2:21-cv-02757-JGL-KAJ.

The second lawsuit was commenced by an individual identified as
Jean-Marie Cousinou and the case is captioned: Jean-Marie Cousinou
, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Washington Prime Group Inc. et al., Case: 2:21-cv-03431-SDM-EPD.

The Slipher case was filed on May 24, 2021 and the Cousinou case
was filed on June 9, 2021. On June 15, 2021, Plaintiff in the
Slipher case voluntarily dismissed WPG from the action, but is
maintaining his claims against the individual defendants.

WPG remains a defendant in the Cousinou case.

Each of the complaints filed in the Securities Class Action
Litigation allege violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
WPG's unsecured indebtedness, liquidity, business, operations, and
prospects during the periods of time specified in each suit as the
class period.

The plaintiff in each case seeks compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not
specified the exact amount of damages sought.

The outcome of the legal proceedings that comprise the Securities
Class Action Litigation cannot be predicted with certainty at this
time. WPG's insurance carriers have been placed on notice of these
matters.

WPG believes that the Chapter 11 Cases filed by WPG and certain of
its affiliated companies, may impact the Securities Class Action
Litigation, including the imposition of the automatic stay.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, it is
likely that the Court will consolidate the Slipher and Cousinou
case and will appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

Washington Prime Group Inc. is an American real estate investment
trust that invests in shopping centers. The company is organized in
Indiana with its headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.


WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: Paymon Appeals Judgment in Tuition Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff PEYTON PAYMON filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled PEYTON PAYMON, and all others who are
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY and BOARD
OF GOVERNORS OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.
20-000059-MK, in the Michigan Court of Claims.

The Plaintiff brought this case against Defendants to demand
remediation of the Defendants' refusal to provide adequate
restitution for tuition, room and board, fees, and other applicable
costs after the Plaintiff and similarly situated students were sent
home from Wayne State University due to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease of 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic. As a result of this alleged
refusal, the Plaintiff and similarly situated students lost the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, and student
activities for which they had already paid or been charged by the
University for an entire semester. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated students seek a refund of the amounts they paid on a
pro-rata basis or an equivalent reduction in charges as well as
other damages.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order dated July 21, 2021
entered by the Hon. Judge Christopher M. Murray, granting summary
disposition in favor of the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as PEYTON PAYMON vs. WAYNE STATE
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 358128, in the Michigan Court of Appeals,
filed on August 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PEYTON PAYMON, and all others who are similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK          
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: nfink@fmkbressack.com

Defendants-Appellees WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY and BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY are represented by:

          Martha J. Olijnyk, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 843-0843
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: mjo@miller.law

WELLS FARGO: Gerges CARES Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YOHANNA GERGES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
CGC-21-592138, was removed from the Second Judicial District Court,
County of Bernalillo, New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico on August 23, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00810-KK-GJF to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES)
and the federal Small Business Act.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is an American multinational financial
services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Gregory J. Marshall, Esq.
         SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
         One Arizona Center, Suite 1900
         Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
         Telephone: (602) 382-6000
         Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
         E-mail: gmarshall@swlaw.com

                 - and –

         Jeanne Y. Sohn, Esq.
         200 Third St. NW, Suite 500
         Albuquerque, NM 87102
         Telephone: (602) 382-6000
         Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
         E-mail: jysohn@swlaw.com

WELSPUN PIPES: 8th Cir. Vacates $1 Attys.' Fee Award in Vines Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Anthony Vines, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Dominique Lewis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Welspun Pipes
Inc.; Welspun Tubular LLC; Welspun USA, Inc. Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 20-2168 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit vacates the district court's $1 award of attorneys'
fees and remands for proceedings.

Anthony Vines and Dominique Lewis brought a class action against
the Defendant companies (collectively, "Welspun"), alleging that
Welspun had underpaid its employees by improperly rounding the time
employees worked in the company's favor. They made claims under
federal law (FLSA) and state law (AMWA). The parties began
negotiating a settlement. Eventually, they came to an agreement for
the Plaintiffs' wage claim, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Under the agreement, Welspun would pay $211,666.36 to the first
opt-in class and certain amounts to each member of the second
opt-in class, whose members had not yet been determined. Welspun
would also be required to pay the Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, (SLF)
$89,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for the first opt-in class and
additional attorneys' fees that were dependent on the number of
people opting into the second class.

In September 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for approval of
the settlement agreement. The district court denied the joint
motion because it could not determine the reasonableness of the
agreement without certain information, such as the number of people
in each opt-in class, SLF's billing records, and an example of
SLF's contingency-fee agreements with the opt-in classes.

Following the denial of the joint motion, the parties went back to
the drawing board and reached a new agreement. They moved for its
approval in March 2020. The first opt-in class would receive the
same amount -- $211,666.36. But this time the second opt-in class,
whose members were now determined, was slated to get $57,673.24.
SLF's attorneys' fees and costs were also set at $96,000. And the
parties included with the motion a breakdown of the classes'
members, SLF's billing records, and examples of SLF's contingency
agreements.

After reviewing these documents, the district court again denied
the parties' joint motion. It determined that the parties had not
negotiated the Plaintiffs' wage claim separately from the
attorneys' fees, as required by Barbee v. Big River Steel, LLC, 927
F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2019).

Finally, in May 2020, the parties submitted for approval a
settlement agreement that included amounts only for the wage claim.
The amounts were the same as the parties' March 2020 agreement.
This time, the district court approved the settlement -- finding it
reasonable and negotiated separately from the attorneys' fees --
and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims. The parties did not come to a
new agreement regarding attorneys' fees and costs.

Then, the Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees. They requested that
SLF be awarded $96,000 because that was the amount the parties had
previously negotiated. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argued that
$96,000 was a reasonable fee based on the lodestar fee-calculation
method.

The district court granted the motion for attorneys' fees but
awarded only $1 because of certain of SLF's billing practices. The
district court also noted that it would award $25,000 if the $1
award was vacated on appeal.

Discussion

Plaintiffs Vines and Lewis raise three issues on appeal. First,
they assert that the district court erred in denying the March 2020
motion for approval of settlement based on Barbee. Second, they
argue that the district court abused its discretion in awarding $1
or alternatively $25,000 as a reasonable attorneys' fee. Finally,
they ask that if the Eighth Circuit remands, it reassigns their
case to a different judge.

A. Settlement Approval and Barbee

Plaintiffs Vines and Lewis argue that the district court
overstepped its authority under Barbee to ensure that their wage
claim was separately negotiated from their attorneys' fees. They
urge that the district court erred by finding that the March 2020
agreement was not separately negotiated because it later found that
the May 2020 agreement regarding only the FLSA claim was reasonable
and fair, although the payments for the FLSA claim were equal
amounts in both agreements.

The Eighth Circuit holds that there is sufficient evidence in the
record for the district court to have determined that the wage
claim and the attorneys' fees were not separately negotiated. The
district court considered three factors to support its decision.
First, the parties simultaneously negotiated the wage claim and the
attorneys' fees over e-mail. Second, the parties' joint motion for
approval of the settlement indicated that the settled-on attorneys'
fees were not primarily based on SLF's "total amount of billing to
date" but instead on "the likely total amount of billing should the
case proceed through extensive discovery, pre-trial, and trial."
Third, the district court identified an e-mail from SLF to Welspun
that attempted to address Welspun's concern about the size of the
attorneys' fees.

The Eighth Circuit concludes that the district court did not
clearly err when it denied the parties' joint motion for approval
of the settlement based on its conclusion that the FLSA claims and
the attorneys' fees were not separately negotiated. The record
before the district court supported that conclusion.

B. Attorneys' Fees

Based on the record before it, the Eighth Circuit holds it is
unlikely that a $1.00 attorneys' fee is reasonable. It says the
Plaintiffs obtained an almost $270,000 settlement, and SLF likely
performed some reasonably expended hours. But without any reference
to the lodestar amount, the district court said it awarded $1
because it could not award any less. Without a supporting rationale
based on the lodestar calculation and reduction, this was error.

The district court also noted that, if its $1 award was improper,
it would award $25,000 because that was "the amount unreasonably
rejected by SLF in Welspun's August 2019 offer." The Eighth Circuit
holds this amount also lacks a basis in the lodestar calculation.
It may be that $25,000 is a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees,
but the Eighth Circuit cannot conduct a meaningful review of the
district court's determination on this record.

Because the record contains no lodestar calculation, the Eighth
Circuit vacates the award of attorneys' fees. It notes that "it is
well within the district court's broad discretion to consider the
party's unprofessional conduct in the case." But this consideration
should come after the district court calculates the lodestar and
has moved on to reducing that number.

C. Reassignment

Finally, Vines and Lewis ask the Eighth Circuit to reassign this
case on remand. They did not move for recusal.

There is "precedent in the circuit for reviewing recusal claims
first raised on direct appeal. However, when a recusal claim is not
raised below, the Eighth Circuit reviews only for plain error."
Under plain-error review, its review "is narrow and confined to the
exceptional case where error has seriously affected the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. It
will only reverse if the error prejudiced the substantial rights of
the appellants and would result in a miscarriage of justice."

Plaintiffs Vines and Lewis point the Eighth Circuit to various
judicial rulings by the district court that they claim show that
the district court is biased against them. But "judicial rulings
alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion, and judicial remarks that are critical or
disapproving of, or even hostile to a party ordinarily do not
support a bias or partiality challenge.

On this record, the Eighth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to show under plain-error review that the district court
would be unable to adequately award attorneys' fees on remand. In
fact, the district court has shown that it is capable of
appropriately determining reasonable attorneys' fees for SLF after
a remand; it has done it before. The Eighth Circuit declines to
reassign the case.

Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit vacates the district court's award of attorneys'
fees and remands for proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/amhkavy6 from Leagle.com.


WICHITA STATE: $215K in Attys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Bahnmaier
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BAHNMAIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02246-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A.
Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and for a Service Award to
Representative Plaintiff.

The Court previously approved the class-action settlement between
representative Plaintiff Bahnmaier and Defendant Wichita State
University ("WSU") relating to a data-breach incident announced by
WSU in March 2020 as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and
certified the Settlement Class solely for purposes of the
Settlement pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b). The Court also approved
the payment of a service award to the Plaintiff in the amount of
$1,500 as fair and reasonable, but took under advisement the Class
Counsel's request for $325,000 for attorney fees and reimbursement
of their litigation costs and expenses pending in camera review of
billing and expense records.

Having considered the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses and for a Service Award to Representative
Plaintiff, the Class Counsel's arguments at the final approval
hearing on July 27, 2021, and the billing and expense records
reviewed in camera, Judge Robinson granted in part and denied in
part the fee motion.

The Judge holds that the Class Counsel have provided, and she has
reviewed, detailed time and expense records to support their fee
request. The Counsel spent nearly 400 hours prosecuting the action
from its inception through May 11, 2021, though they seek
reimbursement for only 371.25 of those hours. The costs associated
the present fee application are omitted from the Class Counsel's
fee request. The Class Counsel handled the case efficiently from
the outset, assigning tasks to counsel billing at a lower rate
whenever possible.

Judge Robinson is satisfied that the records provided in the case,
the affidavit of the lead Class Counsel, and relevant precedent
support that the hours worked were reasonable under the
circumstances and that the requested hourly rates are reasonable.
The Judge is also satisfied that the expenses for which the Class
Counsel seek reimbursement are the types of expenses routinely
charged, were appropriately documented by the Class Counsel, and
appear to have been necessary and reasonable to prosecute the
litigation.

In light of the foregoing findings, the Judge approves the
requested lodestar fee of $210,974.50 and expenses of $4,052.39 as
reasonable under Rule 23(h), for a total of $215,026.89.

The Class Counsel also seek a multiplier of 1.5 times the lodestar
amount to account for the risk they accepted in taking this complex
case, which adds more than $100,000 to the total fee request. Judge
Robinson finds that the multiplier is not warranted under the
Johnson factors, particularly in light of the low rate of claims
submitted by the Class Members, which as of the date of the final
settlement approval hearing totaled significantly less than the
fees awarded on the basis of the lodestar alone. Adding the
multiplier would compensate the Class Counsel at a rate roughly
twice the total class recovery.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Robinson grants the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and for a Service
Award to Representative Plaintiff as to the lodestar fee request
but denies as to the request for a multiplier. The Class Counsel
are awarded of fees of $210,974.50 and expenses of $4,052.39, for a
total of $215,026.89.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 18, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/nyn8rmm8 from Leagle.com.


WILKS GROUP: Ross Seeks OT Pay for Sales Associates Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN ROSS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE WILKS GROUP, INC., CHERYLL WILKS and MARK WILKS,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00838 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2021) is a collective
action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and other Sales Associates'
duties were rote and routine, and they sought input from
supervisors in making decisions which were not route or routine.
Allegedly, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for hours worked
over 40 each week during her training period. The Defendant also
did not pay other Sales Associates wages for hours worked over 40
each week during their training period.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
proper overtime compensation under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its facilities located
in Waco.

The Defendant owns and operates an Ashley HomeStore in Waco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WOKCANO CULVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Son Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORIO CITE SON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOKCANO CULVER CITY, LLC; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV30772 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 19, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Son was employed by the Defendants as cook.

WOKCANO CULVER CITY, LLC operates a restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shelley K. Mack, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
          4100 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 302-8392
          Facsimile: (323) 306-0551
          E-mail|: smack@lfecr.com

WORKHORSE GROUP: Weis Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit headed by Timothy
M. Weis.

On March 8, 2021, Sam Farrar, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the Company's securities, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company, Duane Hughes
and Steve Schrader in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Case 2:21-cv-02072) claiming
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On March 11, 2021, John Kinney, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the Company's securities, filed a
substantively identical putative class action complaint against the
Company, Duane Hughes and Steve Schrader in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case
2:21-cv-02207) also claiming violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On May 18, 2021, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
Timothy M. Weis as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On July 16, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint is now brought against the Company, Duane
Hughes, Steve Schrader, Robert Willison and Gregory Ackerson, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 10,
2020 through May 10, 2021.

It alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by intentionally or recklessly making material misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding the Company's participation in the
bidding process to manufacture the new fleet of United States
Postal Service ("USPS") next generation delivery vehicles, the
prospect of the USPS awarding the contract to Workhorse given
alleged deficiencies in Workhorse's proposal, the Company's
manufacturing abilities generally and the Company's nonbinding
"backlog" in its vehicles.

Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages
in an indeterminate amount.

The Company believes the Amended Complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously pursue all legal avenues to fully defend
itself.

The Company's response to the Amended Complaint is due on or before
September 3, 2021.

Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing
sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial
transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company
create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including
the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate. The
company is based in Loveland, Ohio.


YALLA GROUP: Faces Crass Securities Suit Over ADSs Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY CRASS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. YALLA GROUP LIMITED and TAO YANG, Case No.
1:21-cv-06854 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2021) is a securities class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons or
entities, except for Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Yalla American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between
September 30, 2020 and August 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Yalla held its U.S. initial public offering ("IPO") on or about
September 29, 2020. The IPO consisted of an offering of 18.6
million ADS, each representing one Class A ordinary share, at $7.50
per ADS.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial metrics. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose
that the Company overstated its user metrics and revenue and, as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 19, 2021, Swan Street Research ("Swan Street") published a
report (the "Swan Street Report") addressing Yalla, entitled "Is
Yalla Group a Multi $B Fraud? The ‘Clubhouse of the Middle East'
UAE Tech Unicorn that Never Was." The Swan Street Report alleged,
among other things, that the Company has been inflating its
financial metrics, including its user data and its revenue, and
characterized Yalla's financial statements as "not credible."

On this news, the price of Yalla ADS fell $1.31 per share, or
7.15%, to close at $17.01 per ADS on May 19, 2021.

The next day, May 20, 2021, analyst The Bear Cave issued a report
entitled, "Problems at Yalla Group," and Gotham City Research also
tweeted that it was shorting Yalla ADS.

On this news, the price of Yalla ADS fell an additional 6% on May
20 to close at $15.96.

Then, on August 9, 2021, after the markets closed, Yalla issued a
press release entitled, "Yalla Group Limited Announces Unaudited
Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results," announcing its financial
results for the second quarter of 2021 ("2Q21 Results").

The 2Q21 Results disclosed that Yalla had quarterly revenue of
$66.62 million, which did not meet analysts' expectations.

On this news, the price of Yalla ADS fell nearly 18.9% on August
10, 2021, closing at $10.99, down from its previous close price of
$13.55.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Mr. Crass acquired Yalla ADSs at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged due to the alleged federal
securities violations and related misstatements.

Yalla is a holding company under the laws of the Cayman Islands and
is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates. Yalla's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol
"YALA." Defendant Yang has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO").

Yalla is a voice-centric social networking and entertainment
platform that operates mainly in the Middle East and Northern
Africa ("MENA") region.

Yang had the power and authority to control the contents of Yalla's
SEC filings, press releases, and other market communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

ZYNERBA PHARMA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for August 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the putative class action suit related to
product candidate Zygel ("ZYN002"), is scheduled for August 31,
2021.

On October 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, with an amended complaint filed on March 9, 2020.

This action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of Zynerba investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to product candidate Zygel
("ZYN002") in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendants made
false statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving
unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 clinical trial; (ii)
that the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that
Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for
commercializing Zygel for the treatment of developmental and
epileptic encephalopathies in children and adolescents, and (iii)
as a result the Company's public statements and public filings were
materially false and misleading to investors.

The Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint was
denied on November 25, 2020.

The Company and the individual defendants reached an agreement to
settle this action, which was subject to the preliminary and final
approval of the court.

On May 12, 2021, the court issued an order providing for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of claims asserted
in the Shareholder Class Action, subject to final approval
following a settlement hearing before the court, currently
scheduled for August 31, 2021.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, during the three months
ending June 30, 2021, the Company and its insurance carrier
deposited their respective share of the agreed-upon settlement
amount into a settlement fund escrow account pending final approval
of the settlement by the court.

Zynerba said, "The Company and the individual defendants have
denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed any
violations of law or breaches of duty as alleged in the Shareholder
Class Action and make no admission of liability or any form of
wrongdoing."

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. provides pharmaceutically-produced
transdermal cannabinoid therapies for rare and near-rare
neuropsychiatric disorders. The company is committed to improving
the lives of patients and their families living with severe,
chronic health conditions including Fragile X syndrome, or FXS,
autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or
22q, and a heterogeneous group of rare and ultra-rare epilepsies
known as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEE. The
company is based in Devon, Pennsylvania.


[*] Canadian Lithium-Ion Batteries Price-Fixing Class Suit Settled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino at canadianlawyermag.com reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec have
approved $21.3 million in settlement funds for the Canadian
lithium-ion batteries price-fixing class action and a protocol for
the distribution of such funds.

Siskinds LLP, based in Ontario and Quebec; Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman LLP, a boutique firm in Vancouver; Belleau Lapointe,
s.e.n.c.r.l., a boutique firm in Montreal; and Sotos LLP in Toronto
acted as class counsel in the class proceeding initiated in 2013,
which alleged price-fixing in the market for lithium-ion batteries
(LIBs) and certain products containing LIBs in Canada.

Individuals who bought LIBs or LIB products in Canada between Jan.
1, 2000 and Jan. 1, 2012 may claim settlement benefits, including
for undocumented purchases, said a news release announcing approval
of the protocol. The settled defendants did not admit wrongdoing or
liability.

This class proceeding is notable because it sheds light on who can
assert a claim in a price-fixing conspiracy case and which claims
they can bring, says Linda Visser, a partner in the class action
department of Siskinds LLP. The case ensures that all those
affected by an unlawful conspiracy can make a claim, which in turn
promotes access to justice, she adds.

The class action dealt with unsettled legal issues on its
certification motion, Visser says, with the first being whether
umbrella purchasers, or those who bought the batteries directly or
indirectly from a non-defendant manufacturer, have a cause of
action in the price-fixing conspiracy case.

The plaintiffs submitted that, because the defendants controlled
the market and generally drove up market prices, all buyers of the
relevant product were affected by the defendants' wrongful conduct.
The Superior Court and the Divisional Court disagreed with the
plaintiffs' theory, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned this
decision. The defendants were then denied leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

Another highly contested issue was whether the Competition Act is a
complete code, such that breaching it cannot be the basis for a
common law claim for tort of unlawful conspiracy. This issue was
significant because it determined the remedies available to the
class, Visser explains. For example, punitive damages are only
available at common law.

The Superior Court again ruled against the plaintiffs, who then
succeeded on appeal to the Divisional Court. In Pioneer Corp. v.
Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was
favourable to the plaintiff, represented by Siskinds and by Camp
Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, on all issues, including in relation to
the Competition Act.[GN]

[*] Navigating Jurisdictional Issues in Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Takeway: Class action litigation implicates jurisdictional issues
in a number of ways. Class action defendants generally prefer
federal over state courts and - when presented with the opportunity
- will seek to remove putative class actions under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Class defendants also will seek to enforce
forum selection clauses requiring litigation in another country.
And the personal jurisdiction issue can be leveraged to object to
the certification of a nationwide class in a putative class action
filed outside of the class defendant's home forum. Recent decisions
by the Fifth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits show how these issues
play out in class litigation.

In Madison v. ADT, L.L.C., --- F.4th ----, No. 21-90028, 2021 WL
3732741 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021), two individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action against an employee of ADT LLC ("ADT") in
Texas state court, alleging that he misused his access privileges
to ADT's home surveillance systems to spy on ADT customers in their
homes. ADT, already a defendant in similar privacy actions in Texas
and Florida, intervened in the suit and, as a non-resident citizen
creating minimal diversity, removed the action to the Northern
District of Texas under CAFA. But the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court based on CAFA's "home
state" exception, which requires a federal court to abstain from
exercising jurisdiction if "two-thirds or more of the members of
all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary
defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was
originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). The Fifth Circuit
granted ADT's application for permission to appeal under CAFA and
reversed the remand order, finding ADT the "real target" and
therefore a "primary defendant" in the case. 2021 WL 3732741, at
*2. The panel concluded: "[Plaintiffs] claim to represent a class
of plaintiffs seeking millions in recovery for the invasion of
their privacy, although, as of yet, they have asserted claims
against only the offending employee (who is imprisoned). But the
thrust of this suit is to gain access to ADT's deep pockets, and
ADT, having properly intervened, must be considered a primary
defendant under CAFA." Id.

In Turner v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., --- F.4th ----, No. 20-13666,
2021 WL 3673727 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2021), Paul Turner, a Wisconsin
resident who had sailed out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida on the
Italian cruise ship Costa Luminosa, filed a putative class action
against the Italian cruise operator and its American subsidiary,
alleging negligence and other claims arising from a COVID-19
outbreak on the cruise (Mr. Turner himself contracted the virus).
But by purchasing his cruise ticket, Mr. Turner agreed to a forum
selection clause requiring that any litigation be filed "only in
the courts of Genoa, Italy." 2021 WL 3673727, at *1. The Southern
District of Florida found the forum selection clause enforceable
and granted defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens
grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on a long line of
federal cases enforcing forum selection clauses (including in the
cruise ticket context), and emphasizing the "heavy burden of proof"
faced by a plaintiff in proving a clause unenforceable. Id. at *2.

In Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., --- F.4th ----, No. 19-56224, 2021 WL
3504041 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021), Kenneth Moser, a California
resident, filed a putative class action in the Southern District of
California against Benefytt Technologies, Inc. ("Benefytt"), a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Florida, alleging that it was
responsible for unwanted sales calls that violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moser moved for the
certification of two nationwide classes under the TCPA. Benefytt
opposed certification, arguing (among other things) that the
district court could not certify nationwide classes because it
lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the claims of
non-California class members under the Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S.
Ct. 1773 (2017).

In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court held that a California state
court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident
plaintiffs' claims in a mass action against a non-resident
corporation. Although that case did not address whether it applied
to class actions, many class defendants have argued that
Bristol-Myers prohibits a federal court from exercising specific
jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident class members, as we
have addressed in a number of articles. See, e.g., Fifth Circuit
rules that defendant did not waive Bristol-Myers personal
jurisdiction defense asserted at class certification stage (April
17, 2020); Second Circuit rejects personal jurisdiction over claims
by out-of-state class plaintiffs and again quashes claim of
"reasonable consumer" deception (April 13, 2020); Seventh Circuit
rules that Bristol-Myers personal jurisdictional ruling does not
apply to class actions (March 31, 2020); Deepening district court
discord on application of Bristol-Myers to class actions highlights
need for appellate guidance (June 4, 2018).

The district court rejected Benefytt's jurisdictional objection and
certified the nationwide classes, on the ground that Benefytt had
waived the argument by failing raise the jurisdictional defense in
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(h)(1). On appeal, the
Ninth Circuit concluded (over the dissent of District Judge
Kathleen Cardone) that it had appellate jurisdiction under Federal
Rule 23(f) and that the district court erred in ruling that
Benefytt had waived its jurisdictional argument to the
certification of the nationwide classes. The panel vacated the
class certification order and remanded to the district court to
consider Benefytt's jurisdictional objection. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***